upvote
It's not a great analagy; it's more like a pen manufacturer not wanting their pens used to sign drone strike orders, who then only ships pens with cameras and solenoids so that the point stays retracted until the camera verifies that the paper doesn't include a drone strike orders.
reply
And that would be absolutely fine for a pen manufacturer to do. It would make them unsuitable for meeting the requirements for a government contract as a pen supplier for signing orders, but would not make them a supply-chain risk.

Same goes for Anthropic: they would only consider offering a version of their product for military use that had certain restrictions. The government is free to accept that version or reject it. Rejecting it and designating Anthropic a supply-chain risk is just political intimidation and retribution for not playing ball.

reply
i am not sure even this covers it.

it would be like the pen manufacturer who ships pens with an automatic point retractor, AND a video livestream to the manufacturer from the pen AND remote control of the point retractor.

anthropic and contractors monitor the livestream remotely to make sure the pen is not signing drone strike orders and may choose to activate the retractor.

reply
> anthropic and contractors monitor the livestream remotely to make sure the pen is not signing drone strike orders and may choose to activate the retractor.

I might be mistaken, but in the case of national security deployments the models are airgapped and Anthropic doesn't actually have access to telemetry/logging from them.

reply
You are repeatedly saying they spy on their users? Prove it. Then prove t he other ai companies don't. Then prove that the service they offered to the US government didn't have spying disabled.
reply
"You are repeatedly saying they spy on their users? Prove it."

again, anthropic is snooping, section F specifically: [https://www.anthropic.com/legal/service-specific-terms].

"Then prove the other ai companies don't."

xAI zdr is not snooping, section 3.4: [https://x.ai/legal/terms-of-service-enterprise]

openai azure zdr is not snooping: [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/foundry/openai/conce...]

gcp zdr is not snooping: [https://docs.cloud.google.com/gemini-enterprise-agent-platfo...]

only anthropic.

"Then prove that the service they offered to the US government didn't have spying disabled."

the service they offered did have spying disabled. the security risk is from anthropic updating the claude and covertly bricking or degrading it.

quote: "In such an ongoing relationship where the vendor [...] “continuously update[s] and tune[s] the product,” the Department must establish and maintain confidence that the vendor will not add limitations that interfere with the Department’s use of the product." (p26)

"the Department relies on [petitioner] to provide regular updates to Claude" (p27)

[https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.42...]

reply
All of these said they keep data 30 days and xai even said furthermore it can decide to keep data for even longer. You also said the version they provided to the government had spying disabled, the complaint that the govt made seems a thin excuse for what trump wanted as any and all major AI models are subject to constant updates.
reply
They're talking like Amazon Bedrock doesn't exist, which is exactly the service which provides private data and processing for models including Claude.

But also they quite clearly have no idea how classified information systems work: air gapping is step 1 of that process, and no one from Anthropic would be working on those systems without a security clearance.

reply
there is no private processing for recent claude models. there is no fable in IL5 or IL6.

bedrock IL5, nvidia, palantir and booz allen have all blocked fable.

anthropic is demanding that they rat out their customers on anything better than opus 5.

see: [thein.fo/4dekujW]

also, bedrock govcloud does both log and review customer data. specifically, they log and review customer data when it is flagged by their csam classifier.

reply
That article is locked behind subscription. These are private companies, and presumably not running the model on their own systems but are using an interface to the model hosted on Anthropics machine I would presume. So their decision to decline is different from the us govt which will have gotten special privileges.
reply
deleted
reply