4 ms·
Cal Newport and tech commentator Ed Zitron discussed this disparity between Anthropic's public image and their actual practices. Despite cultivating a reputatio
by rexpop 5mo ago
Cal Newport and tech commentator Ed Zitron discussed this disparity between Anthropic's public image and their actual practices. Despite cultivating a reputation as the "ethical" AI company, Zitron argues that Anthropic's actions show they are just as ruthless and ethically questionable as their competitors.
Anthropic has been deeply integrated with the US military, having been installed with classified access since June 2024. The podcast highlights that Claude has been actively utilized during the "Venezuela incursion" and the ongoing "war in Iran".
Despite this active involvement, CEO Dario Amodei released a statement attempting to publicly distance the company from the Department of Defense by declaring they would not allow their technology to be used for "mass domestic surveillance" or "fully autonomous weapons". Zitron categorizes this as a highly calculated PR maneuver, pointing out that LLMs are fundamentally incapable of controlling autonomous weapons anyway. The stunt successfully manufactured a wave of positive press—with celebrities and commentators praising Anthropic as an ethical objector—right when the company was trying to secure an IPO or a massive ~$100 billion valuation, all while they quietly remained an active part of the war effort.
Beyond their military contracts, the podcast details several highly questionable business practices Anthropic has used to artificially inflate their numbers:
1. During a lawsuit regarding their military contract, Anthropic's CFO filed a sworn affidavit revealing the company had only made $5 billion in its entire lifetime. This directly contradicted leaked media reports suggesting they made $4.5 billion in 2025 alone. It revealed that the company's publicly perceived run rate was heavily exaggerated through the "shady revenue math" popular in Silicon Valley, a major discrepancy that most financial journalists ignored.
2. When the open-source agent library OpenClaw first launched, Anthropic deliberately allowed users to connect a $200/month "max account" and essentially burn through thousands of dollars of API compute at Anthropic's expense. Zitron points out that Anthropic knowingly let this happen to temporarily boost their usage metrics and hype while they raised a $30 billion funding round. Just weeks after securing the funding, they abruptly cut off access for these users, a move Zitron cites as proof of them being an "unethical company".
Furthermore, the company has faced criticism for gaslighting users, maintaining poor service availability, and silently degrading model performance while rug-pulling users on rate limits. As Zitron summarizes, it is highly unlikely that either Anthropic or OpenAI actually care about these ethical boundaries beyond how they can be weaponized for better PR and higher valuations.
- petcat 5mo ago> Despite cultivating a reputation as the "ethical" AI company, Zitron argues that Anthropic's actions show they are just as ruthless and ethically questionable as their competitors. Anthropic has taken 10s of billions from investors just like everyone else has. There is no such thing as "ethics" or "morality" when the scale of obligation is that large. So yes, this is obvious despite whatever image they try to cultivate.
- fwipsy 5mo agoAnthropic is a public benefit corporation which limits liability to shareholders. Just because they screwed up their billing doesn't mean every ethical commitment they've ever made is bunk.
- Capricorn2481 5mo ago> Anthropic is a public benefit corporation which limits liability to shareholders What does this have to do with their ethics? This seems irrelevant unless your understanding of ethics ends at fiduciary duty to investors.
- fwipsy 5mo agoIt's the opposite. Parent comment was saying they must be unethical due to their duty to investors. As a public benefit corporation, they can take ethics into account even if it harms shareholders. The extent to which they do so is still up to them, as I understand it, but they aren't forced to be evil as parent was suggesting.
- Capricorn2481 5mo agoAh, got you.
- bluefirebrand 5mo ago> There is no such thing as "ethics" or "morality" when the scale of obligation is that large. At that scale, ethics and morality should become more important, not discarded