美国上诉法院裁定五角大楼可继续禁止Anthropic参与军事合同
A federal appeals court has handed the Trump administration a victory in its fig…
A federal appeals court has handed the Trump administration a victory in its fight with Anthropic.
一家联邦上诉法院在特朗普政府与Anthropic的斗争中,向特朗普政府判给了胜利。
In a new appeals court judgement A U.S. appeals court has allowed the Pentagon to continue blocking Anthropic from military contracts for now over its “national security risk” designation. handing a victory to the Trump Administration.
在新的上诉法院判决中,美国一家上诉法院允许五角大楼继续以“国家安全风险”为由阻止Anthropic参与军事合同,从而让特朗普政府获得了一项胜利。 目前暂时如此。
- The D.C. Circuit said Claude's built-in restrictions can qualify as a supply-chain risk because they blocked government-requested tasks and created uncertainty during an overseas military operation.
- The majority did not rely on Anthropic retaining remote control after deployment, because the Pentagon had clarified that its designation did not rest on that premise.
- Instead, its reasoning turns on whether Claude's encoded safety rules can make the model refuse military tasks when the Pentagon considers reliability operationally critical.
- The majority also accepted Anthropic's AI-safety advocacy as protected speech, but said the exclusion flowed from rejected contract terms rather than retaliation for that advocacy.
- But this is not a nationwide judgment that every federal agency can blacklist Anthropic. Judge Rita Lin's separate California ruling struck down the broader §3252 designation and actions including the government-wide prohibition and the attempt to prevent defense contractors from doing unrelated business with Anthropic.
- 华盛顿特区巡回法院表示,Claude内置的限制措施可被视为供应链风险,因为它们阻碍了政府要求的任务,并在海外军事行动期间造成了不确定性。
- 多数意见并未依赖Anthropic在部署后保留远程控制这一前提,因为五角大楼已澄清其认定并非基于该前提。
- 相反,其推理的核心在于:当五角大楼认为可靠性对作战至关重要时,Claude编码的安全规则是否会导致模型拒绝执行军事任务。
- 多数意见还接受了Anthropic倡导AI安全的行为属于受保护的言论,但指出排除其资格源于被拒绝的合同条款,而非对该倡导行为的报复。
- 但这并非一项允许所有联邦机构将Anthropic列入黑名单的全美性判决。里塔·林法官(Rita Lin)在加利福尼亚州作出的单独裁决推翻了更广泛的第3252条认定及相关行动,包括全政府范围的禁令以及试图阻止国防承包商与Anthropic开展无关业务的企图。
So, oddly, both judgments can exist at the same time because they concern different statutory powers. The D.C. Circuit itself stressed that §4713 has a substantially broader definition of "supply chain risk" than §3252 and expressly said it had "no quarrel" with the California court's conclusion that Anthropic lacked the bad motive required under the narrower law.
因此,奇怪的是,两项判决可以同时存在,因为它们涉及不同的法定权力。华盛顿特区巡回法院本身强调,第4713条对“供应链风险”的定义比第3252条广泛得多,并明确表示它与加州法院关于Anthropic缺乏较窄法律所要求之不良动机的结论“没有异议”。
更进一步:量化金融体系
看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径,把它变成能交付的工程能力