Take that, Trump

[MNW67]

your hatred of trump has prevented you from being objective. You think Anthropic is being forced to do things it doesn't want..

So they are happy to part ways and will assist in the transition, like a responsible supplier (or rather one that likely has a commercial obligation to do so, as is standard).


As I said before, it doesn't matter who is asking to make the changes. The position seems reasonable.

This has been explained to you so many times now. And then each time a couple of days later you come back repeating the same nonsense. I can't work out whether you are doing it on purpose to annoy us or whether you really are that dumb.

 

[motorbiking]

This has been explained to you so many times now. And then each time a couple of days later you come back repeating the same nonsense. I can't work out whether you are doing it on purpose to annoy us or whether you really are that dumb.

I understand what you believe, it doesn't make it fact.

 

[MNW67]

I understand what you believe, it doesn't make it fact.

I am saying what every respected report, including the one with the the man who drew up the original contract is saying. You are out on your own here with made up facts nobody else is covering. I think you do it on purpose just to wear us down with nonsense so we give up. Hence your title as the hundred page poster.

 

[motorbiking]

It isn't even relevant to the discussion. I have said earlier even if we assume it's DoW wanting to make the changes and that Anthropic at no point introduced the safeguards after the initial contract. They no longer want to work that way and have given their supplier an ultimatum. It's perfectly normal.

You are getting upset because it's Trump's government doing it. meanwhile Nosenout, doesn't know what a License is.

 

[MNW67]

You still don't understand the basics of what is happening.

I will write it out for you very simply as I would for a simpleton:

Last July, the government agreed a contract with Anthropic.

The government now wants to change that contract.

Anthropic won't agree to the changes because they go against their core beliefs in safe AI.

The government threatened that if Anthropic don't agree to their changes, they would put them out of business, by designating them as a supply chain risk. This drastic step has only ever been used before against foreign companies which are believed to be spying for a foreign power, such as Huawei and Kaspersky.

Anthropic have not been given the option simply to walk away.

Anthropic are being forced by the government to choose between agreeing to the changes and abandoning their core beliefs, or walking away and being put out of business.

Is that simple enough for you to understand now.

 

[MNW67]

You are getting upset because it's Trump's government doing it

As I said, you have no principles, either moral or free market. No US company has ever been designated a supply chain risk before. You use false equivalency to cover for the fact you are happy for Trump to destroy a private company simply for refusing to enter into a contract with him. And then you use every one of your little tricks to slither out of giving a straight answer.

 

[motorbiking]

Last July, the government agreed a contract with Anthropic.

No dispute

The government now wants to change that contract.

happy to assume that, since its irrelevant.

Anthropic won't agree to the changes because they go against their core beliefs in safe AI.

Did the "physical" safeguards exist at the point of contract? You don't know
Did the DOW find the safeguards restrictive and attempt to ask for them to be removed triggering a renegotiation? You don't know

The government threatened that if Anthropic don't agree to their changes, they would put them out of business, by designating them as a supply chain risk.

This will not put them out business - Google and Amazon's legal team who have reviewed the scope have stated where it leaves them. They are both investors btw.

This drastic step has only ever been used before against foreign companies which are believed to be spying for a foreign power, such as Huawei and Kaspersky.

They are clearly concerned by the supplier demanding the ability to put "safeguards" in place.

Anthropic have not been given the option simply to walk away.

It's the current position and it's what their PR on their website says.

Anthropic are being forced by the government to choose between agreeing to the changes and abandoning their core beliefs, or walking away and being put out of business.

This is not true.

Is that simple enough for you to understand now.

Leave the ego, I know that is hard for you, you've no expertise on this subject, that is obvious.

 

[motorbiking]

I've been using Claud.AI extensively, I find its safeguards odd. On the one hand it refused to draft a simple contract for me to save time, on the other it was willing to give financial investment advice, excellent though it was.

 

[MNW67]

It's the current position and it's what their PR on their website says.

This is the point you can't seem to get your head around.

In a normal situation, Anthropic would be able to simply walk away without any penalty. There would be no punitive actions like the ones announced by Trump and Hegseth. But they haven't been allowed to just walk away. This is what Hegseth wrote:

"no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic"

 

[MNW67]

The man who drew up the original contract for the government was interviewed yesterday in NYTimes. He confirmed that it is Trump who is wanting to change the contract terms unilaterally. And he called Trump's threats 'fascism'. The guy in question is a self-declared right wing free market libertarian, btw.

 

[motorbiking]

This is the point you can't seem to get your head around.

In a normal situation, Anthropic would be able to simply walk away without any penalty. There would be no punitive actions like the ones announced by Trump and Hegseth. But they haven't been allowed to just walk away. This is what Hegseth wrote:

"no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic"

This statement doesn't appear to have made it into the order. Even Antropic have said its much narrower than feared and other expert commentators agree.

Anthropic on Thursday said a Pentagon designation of the AI company as a “supply chain risk to America’s national security” won’t impact their business partners as heavily as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth implied last week.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/05/tech/pentagon-anthropic-supply-chain-risk

Ya see the shouty people on both sides would have done better to do less public shouting. Nobody wants to negotiate with someone they dislike. It's all about trust and you can't have trust, if there is no meeting of minds.

The man who drew up the original contract for the government was interviewed yesterday in NYTimes. He confirmed that it is Trump who is wanting to change the contract terms unilaterally. And he called Trump's threats 'fascism'. The guy in question is a self-declared right wing free market libertarian, btw.

How does a party to a contract change the terms unilaterally? come on, you know this stuff, its basic law.

 

[Justin Passing]

300m business loss out of 14bn won't put them out of business. The US Military systems aren't all THAT big, economically speaking.
I don't see all the AI companies existing forever though. This could be the significant shove to knock Anthropic over.

Hegseth doesn't understand AI I think we can be sure, barely anyone professes to.

Things like "autonomous life threatening" are pretty nebulous ideas.
Nobody is proposing that a system can go off by itself, decide on its rules and start killing anyone it fancies. At the other end, I doubt Anthropic would object to a system to identify Russian tanks as targets in a region, and fire at them.

So what exactly is Anthropic trying to guard against - something like the Rise Of the Machines in Terminator perhaps?

The US Innovates, China Replicates and Europe Regulates, but the EU has copped out on trying to regulate AI. There is a load of verbage produced in that direction, but that contains a phrase like, "none of this applies to military applications".


I think the use of AI in the military is as inevitable as eugenics ( which is starting). When the tools exist, they get used. Like research into "Gain of function" strategies and tactics with regard to pathogens - even if they're shoved offshore to avoid culpability..

 

[MNW67]

This is what Google AI says based on Hegseth's public statement about the ban:

'if every company which does any business with the us military is banned from any commercial activity with Anthropic, how damaging will that be for Anthropic'

The impact of such a ban would be potentially catastrophic, as it targets the foundational infrastructure and primary revenue streams of Anthropic.

Direct Operational Impact
A total ban on commercial activity with any company doing business with the U.S. military would sever Anthropic's ties with its most critical partners:

• Infrastructure Failure: Anthropic relies on Amazon (AWS) and Google Cloud for the massive compute power required to train and run its models. Both are major defense contractors.
• Hardware Loss: A ban would block access to NVIDIA chips, which are essential for AI development.
• Software & Distribution: Key distribution partners like Microsoft, Salesforce, and Palantir—all of which have significant military contracts—would be forced to terminate their commercial relationships

 

[MNW67]

This is what Co-Pilot says for the same question:

A ban preventing any company that does business with the U.S. military from engaging in any commercial activity with Anthropic would be severely damaging, potentially existential, because major defense contractors and their vast supplier networks are already dropping Anthropic under similar restrictions. The designation is unprecedented for a U.S. tech firm and could cut Anthropic off from large enterprise customers who cannot risk losing Pentagon contracts.

 

[MNW67]

How does a party to a contract change the terms unilaterally? come on, you know this stuff, its basic law.

Are you making some pedantic point about the way I wrote that sentence. Please clarify what you want to know before I indulge you.