This is not surprising. Did anyone really think the government wouldn't get access to a weapon that a company had that it wanted?
This is not surprising. Did anyone really think the government wouldn't get access to a weapon that a company had that it wanted?
You're misunderstanding.
The government is the one that said it didn't want/couldn't use this "weapon."
It's quite obvious they just wanted to punish Anthropic, all this supply chain risk is a joke.
Yes, but it's important that we point out their contradictions :)
Everyone knows that Whiskey Pete is an incompetent clown and his decisions will be reversed as needed.
Normal military procurement is going to go through process and use the APIs that Anthropic gives them. The NSA just has to has to achieve the goal of getting the weights out of the target computer.
> The government is the one that said it didn't want/couldn't use this
Technically, the Pentagon did. I don’t know if that’s legally binding on the NSA.
TFA says the NSA is part of the DOD.
It is, but NSA reports to the director of national intelligence, not the defense secretary, so it’s unclear (to me at least) that SecDef’s opinion of Anthropic counts for anything here
I guess DOD is large enough they have multiple parallel cabinet level positions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
It’s not as clear as that. The NSA director is also, traditionally, dual-hatted as the Commander of CYBERCOM and thus a flag officer reporting ultimately to the SecDef. The DNI is responsible for coordinating/funding national intelligence activities but ultimately a lot of day to day operational decision making tends to flow through the pentagon. They would definitely need to abide by DoD policy
> They would definitely need to abide by DoD policy
The policy in question is a statement by SecDef being reviewed by courts. I think it’s fair to ask whether DNI is actually constrained by that, or if it’s a judgement call.
This is not surprising. Did anyone really think the government wouldn't lie?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5g3z3xe65o
... as it has been designated as a supply chain risk.
You have causality backwards
USG signed a contract → USG wanted to coerce Anthropic into changing the terms post facto → USG decide to use supply chain risk designation to achieve this
We know this for a fact because they simultaneously floated using DPA or FASCSA to achieve their desired coercion.
Anthropic has been giving companies access to the model. I think people on here have fallen for it once again. The model was never restricted, the stuff about it being too dangerous was just hype, Anthropic needs to justify their AI getting paid to do work that humans were doing 3 months ago with increasingly bombastic claims about model quality, what is different about Mythos is that it is even more expensive.