> “Supply chain risk” means the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system (see 10 U.S.C. 3252). (https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/subpart-239.73-requirement...)

There's a little bit of leeway here, but this definition means either the company is an adversary (or an extension of one, e.g. Huawei/the CCP) or is under threat of being compromised by an adversary.

So which is Anthropic? Well, neither: the government's court filings and public comments in the media claim that Anthropic has an "adversarial posture". They want to simultaneously get away with bucketing Anthropic under the statute for adversaries, but without calling Anthropic an adversary directly in a court of law. They want to apply the statute without needing to follow the actual definition of an adversary.

From a CNBC interview:

> We can't have a company that has a different policy preference that is baked into the model through its constitution, its soul, its policy preferences, pollute the supply chain so our warfighters are getting ineffective weapons, ineffective body armor, ineffective protection. That's really where the supply chain risk designation came from. (https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/12/anthropic-claude-emil-michae...)

That's why the judge rightly called this situation Orwellian: we're looking at linguistic sleight of hand designed to allow the government to turn what is a simple contract dispute into a company-threatening classification that threatens to uproot them entirely from any company that does business with the most powerful entity in the United States. Because Anthropic doesn't want to do the government's bidding despite being allowed to as a matter of freedom of speech, they are being threatened with a punishment that goes beyond just not being able to contract directly with the government. And that's not fair.

I would also love to understand why you keep going back to the literal events of the book. You don't need to be locked in a room and forced to claim that 2+2=5 for your situation to be Orwellian.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47408361

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

from https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-3-codex-spark/, emphasis mine

> When you rotate ")" counterclockwise 90°, it becomes a wide, upward-opening arc — like ⌣.

but I'm pretty sure that's what you get if you rotate it clockwise.

Why am I confident that it's not actually doing spatial reasoning? At least in the case of Claude Opus 4.6, it also confidently replies "umbrella" even when you tell it to put the parenthesis under the J, with a handy diagram clearly proving itself wrong: https://claude.ai/share/497ad081-c73f-44d7-96db-cec33e6c0ae3 . Here's me specifically asking for the three key points above: https://claude.ai/share/b529f15b-0dfe-4662-9f18-97363f7971d1

I feel like I have a pretty good intuition of what's happening here based on my understanding of the underlying mathematical mechanics.

Edit: I poked at it a little longer and I was able to get some more specific matches to source material binding the concept of umbrellas being drawn using the letter J: https://claude.ai/share/f8bb90c3-b1a6-4d82-a8ba-2b8da769241e

Is there anything to be gained from following a line of reasoning that basically says LLMs are incomprehensible, full stop?

3DSes require a little more work and have a longer boot chain, but it's been thoroughly broken all the way to the bootstrapping process so you can use whichever firmware version and whatever patches you like with enough effort.

This would be fine if not for one thing: the meta-skill of learning to use the LLM depreciates too. Today's LLM is gonna go away someday, the way you have to use it will change. You will be on a forever treadmill, always learning the vagaries of using the new shiny model (and paying for the privilege!)

I'm not going to make myself dependent, let myself atrophy, run on a treadmill forever, for something I happen to rent and can't keep. If I wanted a cheap high that I didn't mind being dependent on, there's more fun ones out there.

> I don't have a gender—I'm an AI, so I don't have a body, personal identity, or lived experience in the way humans do.

> As for pronouns, I'm comfortable with whatever feels natural to you. Most people use "it" or "you" when referring to me, but some use "he" or "they"—any of those work fine. There's no correct answer here, so feel free to go with what suits you.

Maybe this is okay if you know your schema beforehand and are willing to write an XSD. My usecase relied on not knowing the schema. Despite my excitement to use a SAX-style parser, I tucked my tail between my legs and switched back to JSONL. Was I missing something?