Anthropic Sues the Pentagon After Being Labeled a Threat To National Security
- Reference: 0180934010
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/09/1710252/anthropic-sues-the-pentagon-after-being-labeled-a-threat-to-national-security
- Source link:
> The lawsuit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, calls the administration's actions "unprecedented and unlawful" and claims they threaten to harm "Anthropic irreparably." The complaint claims that government contracts are already being canceled and that private contracts are also in doubt, putting "hundreds of millions of dollars" at near-term risk.
>
> An Anthropic spokesperson told Fortune: "Seeking judicial review does not change our longstanding commitment to harnessing AI to protect our national security, but this is a necessary step to protect our business, our customers, and our partners." "We will continue to pursue every path toward resolution, including dialogue with the government," they added.
[1] https://fortune.com/2026/03/09/anthropic-sues-pentagon-ai-supply-chain-risk-trump-adminstration/
[2] https://slashdot.org/story/26/03/05/2233247/pentagon-formally-designates-anthropic-a-supply-chain-risk
[3] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/02/26/2352217/anthropic-ceo-says-ai-company-cannot-in-good-conscience-accede-to-pentagon
Well... They kind of are. (Score:1, Interesting)
If company X provides mission critical capability, and company X can say "Nah, that doesn't fit our mojo match, we say no.".. Then that IS a supply chain risk, a big one. And frankly, with the amount of finite energy required to run AI, the US can't risk to fool around with vendors who can just say "no we're not doing that". Other countries aren't going to pull their AI punches, the US can't afford to either. Sad but true.
Re: (Score:1)
That's like asking why the company that makes MREs for the military can't suddenly make munitions.
Re: (Score:1)
It's nothing like that, at all. It is exactly as I laid it out. They have a world class capability they are selling as a service. The US wants to use that service. They said no. They refuse to sell to the US (or in this case say the US is violating the TOS) for legitimate wartime needs. It's like a steel plant deciding not to sell to the US to make munitions. We NEED capable AI, it's not an option. If they are going to piggy hog the energy and GPUs then they're out... There is only so much AI capability ou
Re: (Score:2)
Who are we at war with again? Children in Iran?
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
And we're fucking winning. Or is that losing. Fuck I don't even know anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the main restriction was 'mass surveillance', I guess we are at war with the american public?
Re:Well... They kind of are. (Score:5, Insightful)
> It's nothing like that, at all. It is exactly as I laid it out. They have a world class capability they are selling as a service. The US wants to use that service. They said no. They refuse to sell to the US (or in this case say the US is violating the TOS) for legitimate wartime needs. It's like a steel plant deciding not to sell to the US to make munitions.
Private organizations have no duty to change terms of contracts or products to satisfy requirements of their customers if they don't feel like it. If you as a customer find the product lacking or don't agree to the vendors terms your recourse is to take your business elsewhere. There is no excuse for blatant retaliatory abuses of power.
The thing that is really fucked about all of this is they agreed to a contract and now the pentagon is throwing a public hissy fit because it wants a new deal with new terms that are unacceptable to the vendor. Welcome to the real world where you don't get everything you want.
> We NEED capable AI, it's not an option. If they are going to piggy hog the energy and GPUs then they're out... There is only so much AI capability out there. It's a reasonable position.
We NEED it so bad we are going to blacklist the company and make sure all of our suppliers can't use it either. This position is an oxymoron.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "We NEED it so bad we are going to blacklist the company and make sure all of our suppliers can't use it either. "
I see it as "We recognize Anthropic makes the best product and we want to use it. But if they can turn it off on us at their choice then it is too dangerous for us to use." You can carry that statement to sub-contractors who also want to use it. Subtle difference but it's a reasonable take.
Re: (Score:3)
Except thats nots whats happening here. They had them declared a "supply chain risk". That means that *any* company doing *any* business with the government are forbidden from *any* dealing with them. Its a designation designed for comanies like Huwei that are run by the chinese government. Its not designed for use to let the military threaten american companies that if they dont weaponise their product they can't even sell to the company that sells toilet rolls to the forestry service.
Regardless, this desi
Re: (Score:1)
The more realistic risk is that a company sub-contracting to the government could have their AI shut off, impacting the government by delaying products reaching them. It's not completely inarguable. I hear you though, it's a slippery slope. Best get it ironed out now, though, and see if Anthropic should just move to the EU where the first amendment is just a pipe dream.
Re: Well... They kind of are. (Score:2)
No, it isnt lawless. Anthropic tech was being used as part of a pilot program. During contract negotiations, Anthropic wanted to limit use of the technology beyond lawful requirements. What government in its right mind would accept limits beyond âoeobey the applicable lawsâ? Itâ(TM)s completely legit to say âoewe arenâ(TM)t doing business with you because of your terms, and we find your terms to be at odds with our missionâ. Anthropic blew up a massive commercial opportunity an
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no.
"I want to use this tool in a way the tool creator forbids as part of their license, so I'm going to make sure a driver developer at Nvidia can't say "hey Claude what is going on with this type conversion that my IDE has a squiggly red line underneath" is not going to protect anyone from anything at all.
It's brazen "that's a nice company you have there, would be a shame if something happened to your best customers" extortion.
Stop carrying this corrupt administration's water by making excuses for t
Re: Well... They kind of are. (Score:2)
A more apt analogy that's come up in the past is pharmaceutical and biomedical companies that decide their products cannot legally be used for administering lethal injection. In this analogy declaring these companies a supply chain risk would prevent any of their products being used by any companies that do business with the US Government. This includes major companies such as Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, so it would be a huge impact.
Re: (Score:2)
So now you're for the government doing the socialist thing and doling out of resources instead of letting the free market do it via capital?
If the government has a "NEED" for capable AI and don't like the terms of service on commercial offerings, they are always capable of building it their own god damn selves.
Why is it that conservatives always want "free market" when it suits them, but when the free market tells them to get fucked, they start reaching for socialist agendas?
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't come remotely close to passing the smell test.
"You won't do what we want, and need, so we declare you a supply chain risk so that no other part of the Government can use you."
This is a punitive measure, and the law strongly hints that you can't do that.
Particularly,
10 USC 3252 (b)(2)(B) less intrusive measures are not reasonably available to reduce such supply chain risk; and
It'll be quite hard to argue that this applies whatsoever. You're an apologist for the administration.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's like a company that makes MREs for the miltary but saying they can't eat them except under specific circumstances that the company agrees with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The real supply chain risk is having a single organization that can, intentionally or otherwise, disrupt your supply chain (single point of failure).
So in this case, the Pentagon is Anthropic's supply chain risk!
Re: (Score:2)
> If company X provides mission critical capability, and company X can say "Nah, that doesn't fit our mojo match, we say no.".. Then that IS a supply chain risk, a big one.
In this case, Anthropic is not the only company that could supply this supposed "mission-critical" capability. If they were, then the risk exists whether or not Anthropic chooses to sell to the government. The government should address that risk by bidding for other companies to manufacture the needed product, or begin an R&D program to make it themselves. Not by slandering the company.
> And frankly, with the amount of finite energy required to run AI, the US can't risk to fool around with vendors who can just say "no we're not doing that". Other countries aren't going to pull their AI punches, the US can't afford to either. Sad but true.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like "there's only so much energy available, so we should insist th
Re: (Score:2)
If company X made the best widget out there, and that widget was needed for defense (or to win a war), you better believe I'd be in favor of forcing them to sell it to the government. That's what the defense production act is all about. And that's also where I'm going. If there is only so much compute possible, and companies gobble it all up, then it's reasonable (reasonable is the key word here) that they can be compelled to supply the US. Not that the US should make it themselves, they can't, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
> If company X made the best widget out there, and that widget was needed for defense (or to win a war), you better believe I'd be in favor of forcing them to sell it to the government.
And you know what? The government could make the company do just that, per the Defense Production Act of 1950. However, the government can only do this for critical items (such as defense or medical supplies) and only at a time of national emergency. I'm not sure that either condition applies respectively to Anthropic's Claude or the current situation.
Re: (Score:1)
I can see trying to get ahead of any automated "Nope, I won't do that" error generated by AI, though. We're in a strange new world, for better or worse, AI is going to be really important to the military... And we want the best without any restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe they should start a project to do exactly that, rather than shortcuts to use a commercial service with commercial terms of service attached?
There's more than one reason why Los Alamos buys their own supercomputers rather than depending on public cloud; one of them is because the work they are doing would violate the public cloud ToS (nuclear weapons research).
Re: (Score:2)
And those companies could easily sue, and win.
There is no sole-source provider in any of this. If you need compute, you have three vendors that you can go to with various degrees of certification with the US Government already: AWS, Azure, and GCP.
If you need AI service, there's Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, X.ai, etc.
Plenty of competition, put it out to bid and see who is willing to meet your terms. You know, just like any other government service contract.
This is all bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like "there's only so much energy available, so we should insist that vendors who use that energy conform to our wishes."
Sounds like Communism to me, where the government decides who uses what resources for what objective. But the "conservatives" of today have no idea what any of that means, because to them "communist" is a simile for "bad" and otherwise meaningless.
Re:Well... They kind of are. (Score:5, Insightful)
A 'supply chain risk' is something that should not be used by a DoD contractor or supplier because it might be subverted by an adversary. Think Huawei routers.
That's not the same thing as something the Pentagon thinks they need. That's what the Defense Production Act is supposed to cover.
The DoD is simultaneously saying that they need Anthropic and that it's too dangerous to use. It's absolute bullshit.
Re:Well... They kind of are. (Score:4, Insightful)
The DoD is simultaneously saying that they need Anthropic and that it's too dangerous to use.
I see it as "We recognize Anthropic makes the best product and we want to use it. But if they can turn it off on us at their choice then it is too dangerous for us to use." Subtle difference but it's a reasonable take.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah this is a good way to put it. They are absolutely a supply chain risk. It's the give an inch take a mile. If a company that sells a product in the US and is a US company can sell it to the military but only if they use it in an approved way sounds like Tank girl and the water & power corporation.
Can you imagine if a steel manufacture said they can sell it to the military but only if they use it in tanks they don't deploy overseas or something else?
No dice.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? License restrictions are a pretty common and mundane part of the procurement bureaucracy. This one happened to hurt hegseth' feelings so it has blown up,
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how 10 U.S.C. S. 3252 works. Period.
> Can you imagine if a steel manufacture said they can sell it to the military but only if they use it in tanks they don't deploy overseas or something else?
That is what Congress passed the Defense Production Act for. So that the administration can force a firm to give it what it wants if it has the capability of making it.
Supply Chain Risk does not even apply. This is a punitive measure.
Use your fucking brain.
Re: (Score:3)
Anthropic is saying they don't want to sell something for a given purpose - that's very different than being able to pull the plug arbitrarily.
Note also that the 'supply chain risk' claim is that Anthropic is too dangerous to be used by any DoD supplier for any purpose.
And why did this unspecified danger only appear after Anthropic said no to Hegseth?
Re: (Score:1)
It really is as simple as I said it. They are the best. We want the best. Sell it to us and let us use it or find another country to make your stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if you ignore the first amendment and the complete lack of evidence behind the supply chain risk claim, then it is simple.
Re: (Score:2)
And that statement is illegal under the first amendment, as private entities have freedom of association enshrined in the Constitution.
That's why you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, doesn't pass the smell test.
Any provider (OpenAI) is also free to withdraw from their contract.
The DPA covers forcing a provider to give you something you want. The declaration of Anthropic as a "supply chain risk" under 10 U.S.C. S. 3252 is purely punitive.
Re: (Score:1)
A lot of companies that make military equipment don't allow field repairs or "jerry rigging".
It's similar to John Deere not allowing farmers fix their own tractors, but if your jeep won't start and someone is about to open fire on your position, that would be a more immediate problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah.. I am not sure where people are getting this idea that somehow the military manages to escape the same license hell other industries live with.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the US Government should be able to violate any contract terms they sign, with impunity, and no recourse.
I'm sure that will end well.
How about "fuck no."
A pox on both their houses. (Score:3)
Is it possible for both sides to lose in a lawsuit? I'm hoping for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it can be dismissed.... but when that happens, both sides claim they won, not lost.
Isn't it called...? (Score:2)
> Anthropic is suing the Department of Defense
I thought it was called the Department of War - somebody needs to make up their fucking minds already.
Re: (Score:2)
It is called the Department of War. Hilariously enough the rest of the Fortune article uses the correct name everywhere else, it's only the quoted sentence that misnames it.
Re: (Score:1)
It is called the Department of War by the current administration and those that want to stay in its good graces. That is not the department's legal name, however.
Re:Isn't it called...? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's officially still The Department of Defense until Congress decides otherwise. "Department of War" is more like it's preferred pronouns.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, "Department of War" *is* more accurate. But, yeah, "Department of Defense" is the legal name.
Re: (Score:2)
The only entity that can rename a Congressionally created "department" is Congress.
They have not renamed it, thus it is not renamed unless you are virtue signalling to the wannabe dictator and his inner circle of fascist thugs.
Re: (Score:2)
> is called the Department of War.
That is incorrect. The Department of Defense is statutorily named, and the Executive does not have the authority to rename it.
It is true that they are calling it the Department of War currently, and nobody can stop them, but they are incorrect- that is not its legal name.
Re: (Score:3)
You know I was gonna say legally it's still Dept of Defense since as I understood it only Congress could legally change the name but in the actual lawsuit complaint they are suing the Department of War so you're spot on, I don't know what to think.
That said look at the lineup of defendants, Anthropic is doing after every department as well as cabinet members personally named. I do appreciate they call out the absurdity of the whole affair.
"In other words, the official suggested that Anthropic was both nece
Re: (Score:2)
> You know I was gonna say legally it's still Dept of Defense since as I understood it only Congress could legally change the name
This is correct.
> but in the actual lawsuit complaint they are suing the Department of War
Well, here's where it gets a little funny with regard to authority of names.
The President can select a name for something Federally, unless Congress has done so.
So the President didn't directly replace the Department of Defense name- he coined a "Secondary Name" of Department of War (thus not asserting the authority, which he does not have, to change it from Department of Defense) and then directed his guys to start using the Department of War moniker.
Department of Defense remains its le
Re: (Score:3)
Get with the times.... it was born 'The Department of Defense" but now identifies as The Department of War
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a minor battalion of the IDF.
Trump is a threat to freedom (Score:4, Informative)
Trump is a threat to freedom.
He prefers using OpenAI's AI, a company far more docile than Anthropic.
He will then be able to continue freely using AI tools to conduct his wars and his cold foreign policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Let him use these garbage "tools" and see where they will get him.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you misunderstand the limitations Anthropic was insisting on. They weren't saying "Don't use this to plan or execute a war.". They were saying "make sure a human has the deciding vote" and "don't illegally do mass surveillance of the US population".
Good luck (Score:2)
You'll be dragging this lawsuit behind you with no tangible result or compensation for at least another 10 years.
2 different legal actions (Score:5, Informative)
One is in Northern District of California: [1]https://www.courtlistener.com/... [courtlistener.com] This is probably the main event. There's an initial complaint and then a request for Temporary Restraining Order.
The other action is in the DC Circuit: [2]https://www.courtlistener.com/... [courtlistener.com] IANAL, but I think it's here because of requirements around disputes that could go to the Court of Claims but that have Constitutional or other non-contractual aspects vector directly to the DC Circuit.
It's always worth finding the docket and reading the complaint, the response, the various legal briefs (and amici briefs) and then the decision. Don't depend on others to summarize this for you, I often find a lot of nuance in there that the brief news summaries miss. (I also find A LOT of bullshit arguments, and legal mumbo-jumbo, but the more of these you read, the easier it gets.)
p.s. It's not officially the Department of War until CONGRESS changes the name.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379655/anthropic-pbc-v-us-department-of-war/
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72380208/anthropic-pbc-v-united-states-department-of-war/
Anthropic played this horribly (Score:1, Insightful)
Anthropic attempted to spin this as being against mass surveillance and autonomous weapons but apparently they also tried to prevent their AI from being used for all kinds of use cases for the Department of War over months of negotiations. Not just cases of autonomous weapons, which are the future of war, but they also wanted to prevent their model from being used even in planning stages for any strikes and any data collection. The question is, why are they suing so they can sell to the Department of War wh
Re: (Score:1)
Oh look, a reasonable take. Thanks for giving me hope that not everyone on Slashdot is completely NPR'd.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing reasonable about the take, even if what they said were true. Anthropic is not suing to win a contract, they are suing to be not labelled a supply chain risk - which is something they objectively aren't, and something that they were labelled incorrectly in spite alone.
Look it's quite simple. You and are are negotiating.
I want something.
You don't want to deliver.
You walk away, that's the end of it right?
No it's not. I am now going to come up to you and punch you in the face.
Now the ball is in
Re: Anthropic played this horribly (Score:2)
If Anthropic went to the DOD to sell its product, then attempts to exclude a wide range of DOD missions from permitted use (even tho those are lawful), how does that not make Anthropic a risk to the DoD supply chain? The government decided to exclude such a company from all DOD business. Why is that inappropriate?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure they are suing for reputational damage by being declared a national security threat, which they could only win if they show substantial harm to the company... which the defense can simply be "see, they gained a bunch of goodwill through there anti-war clauses, so there was no reputational damage".
Anthropics strategy will depend on their books, so if they gained money through it the lawsuit will fail pretty hard.
Re:Anthropic played this horribly (Score:4, Insightful)
> Anthropic attempted to spin this as being against mass surveillance and autonomous weapons but apparently they also tried to prevent their AI from being used for all kinds of use cases for the Department of War over months of negotiations. Not just cases of autonomous weapons, which are the future of war, but they also wanted to prevent their model from being used even in planning stages for any strikes and any data collection.
It would be helpful if you could provide some citations documenting that.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Anthropic attempted to spin this as being against mass surveillance and autonomous weapons but apparently they also tried to prevent their AI from being used for all kinds of use cases for the Department of War over months of negotiations. Not just cases of autonomous weapons, which are the future of war, but they also wanted to prevent their model from being used even in planning stages for any strikes and any data collection.
> It would be helpful if you could provide some citations documenting that.
Don't hold your breath.
Re: (Score:2)
Name an application AI should be used for during wartime.
The best thing I can think of is crawling data looking for patterns or discrepancies. AI can barely operate an automobile on a fixed route in slow city traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if what you said were true, the reality is that none of this qualifies for them to be labelled a supply chain risk. All that it qualifies them for is not succeeding in getting the contract.
Anthropic Can Actually Sue the Pentagon (Score:2)
, and the outcome is not actually a foregone conclusion.
Worth remembering.
Anyone can sue... (Score:1)
Winning is another issue...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
AI is a major threat to every nation's security.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. And the AI companies glory in this. All of their promotional material is centered around how many jobs they can destroy and how much unemployment they can create and how they are going to own all of the thought work. It is naive of them that they are surprised that this is concerning to the point that the government might step in.
Especially since they rely on the governments giving them a pass on stealing all of the world's intellectual property.
Re: (Score:2)
Anthropic itself put something out a few months ago about how their platform had been used for hacking a secure network. When I read their article for details, there was very little about what was done, or how, but a LOT that implied that their platform was fucking awesome because it completed this task.
Re: (Score:3)
> Anthropic itself put something out a few months ago about how their platform had been used for hacking a secure network. When I read their article for details, there was very little about what was done, or how, but a LOT that implied that their platform was fucking awesome because it completed this task.
Sure, you are right. There are threats there, just as there are threats from explosives, which can be used for terrorism. That doesn't mean that the army is going to stop using explosives.
Let's not, though, pretend that this ban from the DoD us because of those risks. It's because Anthropic wanted to mitigate one specific risk - that AI would be used to illegally spy on US citizens. OpenAI has replaced them because openAI was willing to take an agreement which did not block illegal spying on US citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a dog in this fight, I was only chiming in on the grandparent's "AI companies glory in this" comment. It's definitely true.
Re: (Score:1)
I’m sure their shit is garbage, the only defense they have is that the dod allows all kinds of shitty vendors and even weakened standards so they could use Microsoft shitware
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah? Well ... your *mom's* a threat to national security. And I can back that up probably as well as this administration's pentagon can, totally independent of Anthropic not willing to sign that contract.
Re: (Score:2)
My mother is dead. But thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
> My mother is dead. But thanks for playing.
And she's probably still a threat to national security!
Re: (Score:2)
She presents a gravitational issue even her un-alive state.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. :-(
Re:Anyone can sue... (Score:5, Funny)
Considering the record of suing this current admin is 224-111 (a 67% win rate) I would say it's pretty clear that's exactly the action they should take.
I mean this is the admin that has fired hundreds of career attorneys from the DOJ, so much so that a DOJ [1]lawyer asked to be put into contempt just so they could get some sleep. [nbcnews.com]
The Trump admin is everything anti-DEI people have complained about; they hire for looks and loyalty rather than merit or skill. Anthropic's lawyers I imagine feel pretty positive.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/attorney-government-tells-judge-ice-case-job-sucks-rcna257349
Re: (Score:2)
I think the story had huge room for funny, but this is the only funny? And I'm hard pressed to see the joke. Especially since the YOB expects most of those loses to eventually get reversed by "his" pet SCOTUS.
Not that I have a joke to add. I've already made a couple of failed attempts at funny on AI-related topics. But I do have a book to cite, much as Slashdot seems to hate that sort of thing these years. Feeding the Machine by Muldoon, Graham, and Cant has an interesting perspective on the problems AI i
Re: (Score:2)
> the YOB expects most of those loses to eventually get reversed by "his" pet SCOTUS.
His record on that is actually pretty bad. SCOTUS tends to give him his way on shadow docket rulings but he's much less successful in the actual on-the-merits rulings. Granted that he's had a few incredible (as in "impossible to believe") successes like the ridiculous immunity ruling, but on the whole the court goes against him more often than not.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a bit fuzzy in my use of "expects". The YOB continues to believe what he wants to believe. Except sometimes he simply believes what he thinks the current sucker wants to believe, though often in such a case he only believes it long enough to tell it the sucker. (For the n-th time?)
Re: (Score:1)
Have you seen who this admin hires? The latest head of Homeland Security has an associates degree in construction.
Re: Anyone can sue... (Score:2)
Yeh, and honestly, if they lose this, then America is screwed. You have exactly 0 constitutional rights if this doesnâ(TM)t succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
> Winning is another issue...
Particularly against Uncle Sam - regardless of whether (D) or (R) is running things
Re: (Score:3)
Oh this ones a no-brainer, and I predicted it the moment I heard. There are constitution prohibitions on bills of attainder and long long judicial precedent against malicious targetting of individual or companies using the power of the state. Furthermore the president and hegseth both have quite publically expressed this designation as essentially a blackmail threat demanding Anthropic forfeit their constitutionally protected right to free association and expression or they'd be commercially sunk if they do
Re: Anyone can sue... (Score:1)
Since when is a company entitled to federal contracts? I dont think the courts will be too keen on allowing a company to interfere with defense policy in any way shape or form, regardless of tweets and other public statements especially when that is about preventing the otherwise lawful use of technology. Thatâ(TM)s what the core disagreement was about anyway.
Re: Anyone can sue... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is seriously the dumbest take, and I keep seeing it.
Who ever said that Anthropic feels they are entitled to anything? They have a contract with the government, which the government agreed to and signed without coercion. That contract was negotiated by both sides in good faith, and agreed to.
And why does the government feel they are entitled to use a service however they wish, especially when it's expressly against the terms of the contract that the government agreed to and signed?
Do you now feel that the government should be able to alter any contract terms they are beholden to and don't want to be? Does that sound like a good idea to you?
Did you watch the end of The Empire Strikes Back and think Vader was right to unilaterally "alter the deal" and tell Calrissian that he better prey that he doesn't alter it further?
Dumbass.
Re: Anyone can sue... (Score:2)
Anthropic has no contract with the government. The government was using Anthropic tech as part of a pilot program, and Anthropic wanted to limit the use of its tech during contact negotiations. The government is perfectly within its rights to refuse, and bar its contractors from using that technology. What military in its right mind would allow a supplier to dictate terms of use like that?
Re: Anyone can sue... (Score:2)
Source: [1]https://abcnews.com/Politics/p... [abcnews.com]
[1] https://abcnews.com/Politics/pentagon-anthropic-ultimatum-ai-technology-sources/story?id=130498030
Re: (Score:2)
And everyone is fine with the government not choosing Anthropic, including Anthropic.
Only when the government starts declaring them a supply chain risk and not allowing any other government contractor to use it all of a sudden, does the whole thing fall apart.
There is literally no legitimate claim here for that. It's extortion.
Re: Anyone can sue... (Score:2)
You know the government owns most it not all of its IP in its supply chain, right? Itâ(TM)s all work for hire. Why should the government accept such risk in its supply chain? Why doesnt allowing Anthropic to participate in DOD supply chains create a risk to operational or military effectiveness?