3 ms·
I am suspicious the whole thing is a PR stunt to build public trust.
by GorbachevyChase 8mo ago
I am suspicious the whole thing is a PR stunt to build public trust.
- absoluteunit1 8mo agoI share this sentiment. In general - I don’t know if it’s a coincidence but here on HN for example, I’ve noticed an increasing amount of comments and posts emphasizing the narrative of how “well- intended” Anthropic is.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- ternwer 8mo agoFeel free to judge them by their actions rather than intentions. This situation being an example.
- Beestie 8mo agoI'd love to see the financial model that offsets losing your single biggest customer and substantial chunk of your annual revenue with some vague notion of public trust.
- wartywhoa23 8mo agoI'd love to see any evidence that this single biggest customer is provably and irreversibly lost on all levels of scrutiny as a result of this attempt at building public trust.
- mingus88 8mo agoThis is so short sighted. We are so early into this AI revolution, and this administration is obviously in a tailspin, with the only folk left in charge being the least capable ones we have seen in a decade Imagine what the conversation would be like if Mattis, a highly decorated and respected leader were still the SecDef. Instead we are seeing bully tactics from a failed cable news pundit who has neither earned nor deserved any respect from the military he represents. We are two elections and a major health issue away from a complete change of course. But short sightedness is the name of the quarterly reporting game, so who knows.
- HumblyTossed 8mo agoI'm seriously worried there won't be more elections. Not hyperbole at all.
- conception 8mo agoPutin crushes every election he has. Of course there would be more elections.
- delecti 8mo agoI don't think it's crazy to worry that, but elections are run by the states, there are over 100,000 poling places nationally, and people are pissed. On Jan 3, the entire current House of Representatives terms end; Democratic governors will still hold elections, and if there haven't been elections in GOP-led states, they're out of representation. There are so many hurdles in the way of the fascists canceling or heavily interfering in elections, and they're all just so stupid.
- ckemere 8mo agoWaPo headline “Administration plans to declare emergency to federalize election rules.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/26/trump-elections-executive-order-activists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/26/trump-ele...
- delecti 8mo agoYeah, they can plan whatever they want. No such authority exists, and it must really be emphasized that they're all so stupid.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- jrs235 8mo agoThe rest of the world moves to using you?
- GorbachevyChase 8mo agoTheir whole strategy is that the lack of a legal moat protecting their product is an existential threat to human life. They are the only moral AI and their competitors must be sanctioned and outlawed. At which point they can transition from AI as commodity to “value” based pricing. It’s not going to work, but I can’t blame Amodei and friends for trying to make themselves trillionaires.
- Matticus_Rex 8mo ago$200M is >2% ARR at the last numbers we got from them, and would take them back... checks notes... literally only a few days of ARR growth.
- tdeck 8mo agoThis is why we should be skeptical of companies that want to tie themselves to the military industrial complex in the first place.
- georgefrowny 8mo agoIn none of their statements do they say they won't do the things: > we cannot in good conscience accede to their request. That's very specifically worded to not say "under no circumstances will we do this". > Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now Is not saying they won't eventually be included. They've left themselves a backtrack, and with the care there this statement has been crafted, that's surely deliberate.
- reactordev 8mo agoThis. This is a public misdirection. They already signed a new deal. It may be to their disliking but nothing in the statement prevents them from moving forward.
- uncletammy 8mo agoThat is speculation. You might be correct but this statement could simply be a strong signal to the administration to back down. A hail Mary.
- 5o1ecist 8mo ago[flagged]
- abustamam 8mo agoIsn't that what we're all doing in this thread? We could certainly take the document at face value but as a parent commenter said, almost every company starts off with "don't be evil" then goes and does evil things. Is anthropic different? Maybe. But personally I don't see any indication to give them the benefit of the doubt.
- darkwater 8mo agoThis. I don't get why you are getting downvoted. The statement literally says: Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now: Last word is very important: "now".
- HardCodedBias 8mo agoIt absolutely is a PR stunt. And the media is cheering. It's absurd. It's simple: If you do not like working with the military, cancel your contract with the military and pay the penalties. They are explicitly not doing that.
- FabHK 8mo ago> If you do not like working with the military, ... Eh? But they do like to work with the military. How else are you going to "defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries"? They want to work with the military, with just two additional guardrails.
- ternwer 8mo agoThis effectively is cancelling, isn't it? You're implying cancelling quietly would be better. But the department would just use a different supplier. This seems like the action someone would take if they cared about the issue.
- catchmeifucant 8mo ago[dead]