I am in two minds about this one. I do think this is a retrograde decision, but I can also see (steelman?) a perspective from the DoW that they were entitled to make assumptions about the inputs they use for planning and the inability to follow through on those assumptions means they can't now "supply" the kinds of intelligence they sought.
King for a day I wouldn't have done this, but the current king (of the hill?) has, and the court aligns to his intent more often than not these days.
The designation means no one else receiving federal dollars can contract with them, not just that the DoD will offboard them as a vendor. It's also a clause the government had already agreed to for over a year prior.
Huh? Leverage to... coerce the company into serving all DoD usecases?
No it's not. They can invoke DPA.
The supply chain risk designation is not logically able to be used to coerce a company into integration. The whole premise is that its integration would be an unacceptable risk, therefore it must be banned from being integrated!
I think I'm saying it's leverage as punishment: "do what we want or this happens to you" combined with "we can un-do this pain, if you do what we want"
Couldn’t help but laugh at the irony here— you’re not wrong! The fact of the matter is that anthropic is an “unacceptable risk”… that the government had contracted with to use with classified milnet.
That contract was already signed and active, the government had already agreed to Anthropic’s terms, and contractors were already cleared to use Claude on the classified networks; only until anthropic started enforcing those pre-existing guardrail clauses (probably for good reason) did Hegseth get pissy.
Guess it should go without saying: if you cannot support clause A.) surveillance of Americans, and clause B.) AI assisted weapons systems, then you are a /supply chain risk/. Lord knows we don’t need heroes here.
But you know, if abiding those terms is a legitimate threat to your supply chain, then why would you agree to those stipulations to begin with ;)
Edit:
So to more respond to your point: big disagree, this can absolutely be used for compliance. The crucial thing you’re missing is that the government /threatened/ to designate them a risk in response to the CEO’s enforcement of the clause. The government gave them a -timeline- to desist and comply… which debases the claim that they are a supply chain risk. The judge is a moron.
The -only- legal argument for the designation is the ugliest one: the fact that Anthropic is willing to play dead canary. “You’re not a supply chain risk a priori, but you’re a supply chain risk for asserting this work violates 1 and 2”
By the way… the same two stipulating terms exist with OpenAI’s contract with them… nudge nudge wink wink
"Under these circumstances, requiring the Department to
prolong its use of Anthropic’s AI technology, whether directly
or through contractors, strikes us as a substantial judicial
imposition on military operations." (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.42...)
Does not designating Anthropic a "supply chain risk" actually require the DoD to use Anthropic's services?
I am in two minds about this one. I do think this is a retrograde decision, but I can also see (steelman?) a perspective from the DoW that they were entitled to make assumptions about the inputs they use for planning and the inability to follow through on those assumptions means they can't now "supply" the kinds of intelligence they sought.
King for a day I wouldn't have done this, but the current king (of the hill?) has, and the court aligns to his intent more often than not these days.
The designation means no one else receiving federal dollars can contract with them, not just that the DoD will offboard them as a vendor. It's also a clause the government had already agreed to for over a year prior.
It's the only leverage they have I guess. Which is lawfare, and awful.
Huh? Leverage to... coerce the company into serving all DoD usecases?
No it's not. They can invoke DPA.
The supply chain risk designation is not logically able to be used to coerce a company into integration. The whole premise is that its integration would be an unacceptable risk, therefore it must be banned from being integrated!
I think I'm saying it's leverage as punishment: "do what we want or this happens to you" combined with "we can un-do this pain, if you do what we want"
Couldn’t help but laugh at the irony here— you’re not wrong! The fact of the matter is that anthropic is an “unacceptable risk”… that the government had contracted with to use with classified milnet.
source:
https://www.hoyerlawgroup.com/what-the-dod-anthropic-dispute...
That contract was already signed and active, the government had already agreed to Anthropic’s terms, and contractors were already cleared to use Claude on the classified networks; only until anthropic started enforcing those pre-existing guardrail clauses (probably for good reason) did Hegseth get pissy.
Guess it should go without saying: if you cannot support clause A.) surveillance of Americans, and clause B.) AI assisted weapons systems, then you are a /supply chain risk/. Lord knows we don’t need heroes here.
But you know, if abiding those terms is a legitimate threat to your supply chain, then why would you agree to those stipulations to begin with ;)
Edit:
So to more respond to your point: big disagree, this can absolutely be used for compliance. The crucial thing you’re missing is that the government /threatened/ to designate them a risk in response to the CEO’s enforcement of the clause. The government gave them a -timeline- to desist and comply… which debases the claim that they are a supply chain risk. The judge is a moron.
The -only- legal argument for the designation is the ugliest one: the fact that Anthropic is willing to play dead canary. “You’re not a supply chain risk a priori, but you’re a supply chain risk for asserting this work violates 1 and 2”
By the way… the same two stipulating terms exist with OpenAI’s contract with them… nudge nudge wink wink
https://archive.ph/oJLSm
"Under these circumstances, requiring the Department to prolong its use of Anthropic’s AI technology, whether directly or through contractors, strikes us as a substantial judicial imposition on military operations." (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.42...)
Does not designating Anthropic a "supply chain risk" actually require the DoD to use Anthropic's services?
If they can't tell their suppliers not to depend on Anthropic models and services, then... yes, potentially?