Published in The Hill.
Neil Chilson, the head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute, who is a critic of the expanding uses of DPA Title I, said the measure’s use in this case is more within the scope of defense and intent than in previous instances.
“Because we are talking about DOD procuring services for defense purposes, right? So at least at the very high level, this is closer to the intent of the statute,” Chilson said in an interview with The Hill.
Still, he said the Pentagon’s threat of invoking the DPA is “perhaps more aggressive, even if it’s more within the sort of intent of the statute,” compared with the use of the law by previous administrations.
…
But Chilson of the Abundance Institute argued the Pentagon could both invoke the DPA and slap the supply chain risk designation on Anthropic.
“I think logically it would make sense to say, like, we need a tool that lets us make decisions,” he said. “It doesn’t make decisions for us and if you’re not going to provide that tool, then we’re worried about the tools that you are providing to our downstream vendors.”