And where else in law is it allowed to lie or omit material facts?
It's a bedrock foundation of the entire financial and legal world. Public and private alike. Refer SEC Rule 10b-5 as well as Private Placement Memorandum (PPM). For example, Theranos never filed an S1 but still was convicted.
A good-faith judgement was made within a broader context that was unknown to him. What are we expected to demand, hanging on electrified barbed wire?? He acted in good faith, he’s not the architect of a global cataclysm.
For all we know an AI bot wrote the above comment as well.
This is a worrying trend on HN. Nearly for all submissions, there is one unquantified, unproven comment at the top saying it's AI, with just emotion and no proof. This is the new witch hunt, or karma farming without having to contribute anything positive to the discussion.
The original libjxl was written in C and has been riddled with security issues. It’s been rewritten in Rust which is what has been shipped by Chrome and soon Firefox.
I have to think this is a substantial reason for the backflip here as adding a new huge C library to browsers is a huge concern.
13 CVEs (6 CVEs on decoding) over five years is a moderate or good track record. Legacy format libraries like libjpeg, libpng, or libtiff have historically accumulated dozens or hundreds of CVEs even if they were built several years before the CVE process was started.
libjxl's vulnerability rate is low, but it still reflects the growing pains of a modern high-quality C/C++ parsing library.
With Rust things can be safer: For jxl-oxide there is one CVE. libjxl-rs does not yet have filed CVEs.
They more or less had to.
The PDF foundation has added JXL into the standard.
Even Google can't afford to not display PDFs properly.
Including it in the rendering engine is then just the logical next step.
More likely the Google eng. director who tried to get rid of it because of not-invented-here syndrome (it was built in a different org) got a new job or changed company.
Exactly 48 hours (before and on the day of election), banning electoral advertising is the right thing, gives voters the mental space to make up their own decision. It's the silence period.
Add much as I hate the lead up to elections, I love the day before and on, where it becomes purely personal.
I don't think anyone doubts that subcontracts exist. They doubt that Anthropic's insistence that Claude isn't capable of being the operating system for an automated killbot and associated terms the DoD previously agreed to means that there's any danger to the US military from Lockheed Martin using Claude as a code assistant to build GUIs.
What if it’s a GUI to manage deployment of the kill bots? I worked for a DOD contractor on software. All our scenarios were more related. It was like “OK you’ve overthrown the civilian government of this Middle Eastern country, including the radio regulators, and now we need to coordinate radio frequency assignments for the tactical squads.”
Code which renders dots on a map isn't going to magically reorder itself if the GNSS endpoints get switched from manned to unmanned assets just because it was authored by Claude, and if the subcontractor isn't auditing and testing the code outputs properly then they're the supply chain risk, not a specific code-gen tool they use. Obviously if instead of being used as code or report generating assistants, LLM agents are used to execute combat decisions in real time that introduces a lot more risk. That's... literally Anthropic's argument against using them for that specific purpose.
It doesn't make much sense to determine that because Anthropic continues to insist that Claude is unsuitable for use as some sort of super advanced loitering munition, Lockheed using it to write job ads is as much a threat to national security as a Chinese comms terminal.
It's not like the DoD and their subcontractors and their subcontractors' subcontractors aren't used to all sorts of fine-grained separation when it comes to what is and isn't classified or export controlled under normal circumstances, or that Hegseth taking a break from fantasising about soldiers' testosterone levels for long enough to decry Anthropic's stance as 'woke' makes the decision look like one based on operational effectiveness.
"Supply chain risk" specifically refers to risk of malicious attack or sabotage through the supply chain, not all risks associated with supply chains.
A vendor with particularly poor QA might be a risk in your supply chain but isn't a "supply chain risk" according to this designation and neither would Anthropic be.
Supply chain risks are usually when someone does a attack over the supply chain. Like when the mossad planted literally explosives in radio devices for Hezbollah.
Antrophic merely said they don't allow their tools to be used for autonomous killing.
A very specific case.
So where is the danger making it necessary preventing all suppliers from using Claude at all? That only concerns those who work directly on autonomous killing and only they will have to go to Altman or Musk.
So none of that is any threat to the military - so it was just black mailing to make them do the governments will - which is something usually dictatorships do, not democratic systems.
In a democratic society, the default should be, the military just buy somewhere else, then force companies to build them the terminator. So no private company controls what the military does, they just control their product. You want the military to control private companies? There is a name for that kind of system, where this is conmon.
Eh this just we wont buy from you because you are putting limitations on the use. Anthropic will be fine if they don’t like it they can accept the terms of the contract or walk away.
Why has this never previously been done to an American company from which the DoD decided not to purchase something?
Perhaps people who are noticing politics here - including in the decision of two Trump-appointed judges, against the he vote of another Republican-appointed judge- are not the ones who are choosing not to see reality?
President Truman literally seized the assets of a steel company to avert a strike that would hurt the Korean War effort. The Supreme Court stopped him, but three Justices voted it was okay!
We also have the Defense Production Act: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43767. It doesn’t happen more often because most people aren’t stupid enough to say “no” to the U.S. military. These Effective Altruists, however, are too big for their britches.
I don't know, I am just guessing because not a single American company has publicly stated they are against its product use up to a certain degree by DoD? If they have not publicly declared it then yes, DoD simply don't sign the contract.
So your argument is that the government is punishing Anthropic for its public statements? And it is correct to do so?
(I think it's also the case that Anthropic didn't make any public statements about the negotiations until after the DoD was already publicly threatening this designation. But that seems less important than the question of: is it good for the US government to try to destroy companies whose public statements it dislikes?)
Honestly I would find a certain satisfaction in a world where the next Democratic administration takes away Fox broadcast licenses, forbids use of Oracle by any government contractor unless Ellison hands CBS over to Rachel Maddow, and tells Bezos that Amazon is going to be banned from public roads unless the Washington Post front page has positive stories every day. But I doubt the same is true for the many pro-Trump people who complained vociferously about Biden officials expressing preferences to social media companies because of the merely implicit threat that they might take government action of some kind if they weren't listened to.
So we have a pen that may refuse to sign certain orders, and is clearly labeled as such.
If the DoD needs to sign such orders, they won't buy this pen.
If a supplier needs to sign such orders, the supplier also won't buy the pen.
If a supplier needs to sign other orders, and this pen is the best one available, the supplier may decide to buy this pen. Since the orders are within the range of what the pen will sign, they get signed, and the supplier fulfills its contract with the DoD.
Where is the supply chain risk? The ink isn't going to erase itself post-hoc.
---
Now, if the DoD suspects that Anthropic will train its models to try to actively sabotage military operations, that's a very different story. Does anyone actually believe that?
> If a supplier needs to sign other orders, and this pen is the best one available, the supplier may decide to buy this pen. Since the orders are within the range of what the pen will sign
Who decides what’s within the scope of “what orders are within the range of what the pen will sign?” The boundaries are never clear cut. You’ve got a vendor who could kill switch critical military technology if it’s used in a way they decide falls outside the scope of what they want.
> You’ve got a vendor who could kill switch critical military technology if it’s used in a way they decide falls outside the scope of what they want.
If the DoD hires ACME to build some software to make widgets, and ACME uses Claude to build that software, where is the kill switch?
I guess the Claude model could hide a kill switch in the widget manufacturing code, but so could ACME's human subcontractor. Why is Anthropic being considered a supply chain risk here?
The model can refuse to build something, but it can't take back what has already been built.
It's a bedrock foundation of the entire financial and legal world. Public and private alike. Refer SEC Rule 10b-5 as well as Private Placement Memorandum (PPM). For example, Theranos never filed an S1 but still was convicted.
reply