DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Pentagon threatens to cancel Anthropic contract by Friday if company doesn’t lift safeguards

The Pentagon has threatened to cancel Anthropic’s contract by Friday if the company does not agree to the department’s terms for the use of its AI model, sources confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth met with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei on Tuesday at the Pentagon amid a dispute over the AI firm’s usage policy, which bars its model Claude from being used for mass surveillance or to develop weapons that can be used without human oversight.

If Anthropic doesn’t agree to the Pentagon’s terms, the department warned it would use the Defense Production Act against the company or designate it as a supply chain risk, a senior Pentagon official told The Hill. Axios first reported the Friday deadline.

“During the conversation, Dario expressed appreciation for the Department’s work and thanked the Secretary for his service,” an Anthropic spokesperson told The Hill in a statement on Tuesday.

“We continued good-faith conversations about our usage policy to ensure Anthropic can continue to support the government’s national security mission in line with what our models can reliably and responsibly do,” the spokesperson added.

The Pentagon official insisted that tactical operation cannot be led by exception and the legality of the missions are the department’s responsibility as the end user.

“The Pentagon has only given out lawful orders,” the official said.

The relationship between Anthropic and the Pentagon has become increasingly rocky in recent weeks, putting at risk the $200 million contract the company signed with the Defense Department last summer.

Google, OpenAI and xAI also struck similar contracts and have since been added to the department’s new bespoke AI platform, GenAI.mil.

However, Anthropic’s Claude has so far been the only AI model available on classified systems. The Pentagon reached a new agreement with Elon Musk’s xAI to use its AI model, Grok, on the classified side, the Pentagon official told The Hill, while Google and OpenAI are “close.”

Despite the months-long back-and-forth, Tuesday’s meeting was respectful and cordial and both sides were thoughtful and friendly with no one raising their voice, a source familiar with the meeting told The Hill.

Amodei underscored that no one operating in the field has encountered issues with the company’s two red lines, mass surveillance and lethal autonomous weapons, according to the source.

However, the Pentagon official said that “this has nothing to do with mass surveillance and autonomous weapons being used.”

Amodei also noted that Anthropic had no outreach to the department or Palantir after the Jan. 3 raid that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and that the AI startup has never objected or interfered with “legitimate” military operation, the source familiar with the meeting said.

Previously, a senior Pentagon official told The Hill that a senior Anthropic executive was talking with a senior Palantir executive and asking if Anthropic’s AI model was used during the early January operation.

The Palantir executive told the Pentagon about the interaction since he was alarmed the question was brought up in way that would signal that Anthropic could disapprove of use of its model.

The Defense Production Act, which was enacted 1950, gives the president broad authority to control domestic industries for the purpose of national defense. The law was used during the COVID-19 pandemic to boost the production of vaccines.

The Pentagon official said the department would use the Defense Production Act to compel Anthropic to have its model used however the department sees fit, regardless of whether the AI firm wants to or not.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5752960-pentagon-threatens-anthropic-contract/

So the trump administration agreed to and signed a contract with the current constraints in place. But now, mid contract they expect to change the terms and parameters of the contract or they will cancel it? They have officially adopted the trump business model.

Yes. And that's the way all contracts with the Pentagon work. It's not the Trump business model, it's the US military industrial complex business model. It's been that way for over 160 years.

So something especially set up not to spy on the American people or create a weapon out of and that was agreed to, now must change to be used for the very purposes it was agreed not to be used for? And it's been that way for 160 years?

Yep. You're catching on.

I don't think that's true. Just like I don't believe something done legally is comparable to something done illegally.

It's okay to be wrong.

Here is the direction I think you're gong to head but it's not as simple as you're making it sound............................

The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (P.L. 81-774, 50 U.S.C. §§4501 et seq.), as amended, confers upon the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. The authorities can be used across the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense.

Though initially passed in response to the Korean War, the DPA is historically based on the War Powers Acts of World War II. Gradually, Congress has expanded the term national defense, as defined in the DPA. Based on this definition, the scope of DPA authorities now extends beyond shaping U.S. military preparedness and capabilities, as the authorities may also be used to enhance and support domestic preparedness, response, and recovery from natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies.

This comes from congress.gov whose link will not post.

This wasn't passed until 1950. Not 160 years ago. The war powers act only allowed such things to be done during a time of war before 1960. Not the same thing.

And I have seen nothing to indicate this would apply to force a business to make one of their products available in such a form to be used for wide spread spying on American citizens.

Different conversation altogether.

We were talking about the ability to just cancel contracts. That was born in 1861 and SCOTUS reinforced it in a landmark case in 1875. And it IS as simple as it sounds.

So now you are comparing the ability to cancel contracts with the ability to apply pressure on businesses to transform their products and if they don't you will cancel their contracts?

This discussion was never simply about the governments ability to cancel contracts. It was about using a contract by holding it over their heads as a threat of they don't conform their products as you want them to do.

Even when the people who make the product do not believe it is a product that "can reliably and responsibly do,” what the government is asking it to do. But then those type of things have never been high on their priority list from the beginning.

They have been told what to think and what to believe so that is what they are thinking and believing... It's pretty simple.

#trolltime

I'm intelligent enough to know how government contract work, believe it or not.

Climb back in your hole, troll boy.

That's the only thing this conversation was about, until you just changed it. An ancillary argument is totally fine, but don't try to change the facts; they're all over this page and we were the only ones talking.

You're only comment from your copy/paste was about cancelling the contract.


I said that's how government contracts work.

You asked me to clarify based on the circumstances, I said "yep".

You said you didn't think so, I said you were wrong.

You changed the direction by predicting what I was thinking.

I said "nope", wasn't doing that.

Then I provided proof of what I was saying.

Now you say "that's not what we were talking about".

Either there are voices in your head, or you would like to change the direction of the conversation.

I would be all for that, as there is definitely more nuance to the conversation, definitely more scope than just "the contract".


BUT... Now it's troll time as the resident troll has awakened from his slumber... so I'll bow out. I don't have the energy for that mess anymore.

The original article posted on which this thread is based discusses the entire conditions and circumstances surrounding this "contract cancellation" is based was part of the very nature of the thread from the very beginning. Anyone with a brain fully understands that. I understand why you wish to now act like it wasn't in some hopes you're fooling someone because that part of the topic does not suit your narrative.

Thanks for playing. As a consolation prize I will send you a home version of the game.

Here is what you responded to and how you responded to it. Now you claim that was never a part of our discussion.