4 ms·

Honestly, if Skynet were possible, Anthropic would probably build it first and claim they had to because OpenAI is bad.

scottyah 5mo ago
Anthropic has drawn lines with the most powerful organization in the world, that OpenAI capitulated on within hours for a small contract.
- dwa3592 5mo ago
  100% and that was bold and set a good example, at least from the outside.
- actualwitch 5mo ago
  ...and then silently got back to talks with DoD [0] and gave them the Mythos model. Separately, they went back on their promise to only develop models that they can guarantee are safe [1]. I reckon considering which country they are HQ'ed in, building skynet is in their destiny. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/01/pentagon-anthropic-blacklist-mythos-michael.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/01/pentagon-anthropic-blacklist... [1] https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/anthropic-drops-its-signature-safety-promise-and-rewrites-ai-guardrails https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/anthropic-...
  - scottyah 5mo ago
    Lines drawn does not mean "refuse all communications". They were very clear that they wanted to continue the partnership, but adhering to the terms of the contract. I personally think that is the best stance- support the good work and avoid what they deem as bad.
- siren2026 5mo ago
  Let me rephrase this. Anthropic played a really well orchestrated marketing gimmick so that they would be in the headlines for a couple days bringing awareness to non-tech people on how they are supposedly the good guys. They then backpedaled all of this and are in contract with the DoD once the headlines passed. But this obviously worked as you now believe they are the good guys
  - solenoid0937 5mo ago
    They didn't backpedal at all, you're spreading FUD. Their red lines are still in place. They are the only AI company with those red lines.
    - siren2026 5mo ago
      Ah yes, right [1] https://www.obsolete.pub/p/exclusive-anthropic-is-quietly-backpedalling https://www.obsolete.pub/p/exclusive-anthropic-is-quietly-ba... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/25/tech/anthropic-safety-policy-change https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/25/tech/anthropic-safety-pol... [3] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-dials-back-ai-safety-commitments-38257540 https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-dials-back-ai-safety-c...
      - albumen 5mo ago
        Those sources don’t claim Anthropic is crossing its red lines (AI-controlled weapons and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).
      - solenoid0937 5mo ago
        You didn't read your own sources. The red lines are still in place.
        siren2026 5mo ago
        Oh I read them. If I had to bet I follow this more closely than you do. Some redlines are still in place. Not the same ones and it is very clear based on this precedent that red lines can be moved at any times whenever it is convenient for Anthropic as shown by the above articles. So as I said, all a marketing gimmick.
        solenoid0937 5mo ago
        Please quote exactly where the two red lines (autonomous robotic killbots on current-day models, domestic mass surveillance) have been lifted.
- bugufu8f83 5mo ago
  Their statement on this issue opened by emphasizing how eager they are to help kill people: >I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries. There is no universe where this can be described as anything close to ethical.
  - fasterik 5mo ago
    It's not controversial to say that democracy is a more ethical form of government than autocracy. It's also not controversial to say that violence is sometimes justified when it's in self-defence or to prevent a greater injustice from happening. So what's the ethical objection to that statement?
    - xp84 5mo ago
      I wonder if GP subscribes to the narrative of moral equivalence between things the Iranian regime does (such as slaughtering crowds of anti-government protestors) and what Hamas does (such as the butchery and terror committed against innocent civilians on Oct 7th) and any deaths or injuries that occur directly attributable to a US military action. If so, then I suppose they'd say it's fair to condemn the US as evil because deaths have happened, after all. Pacifism and turning a blind eye to anything happening in another sovereign country seems like what that particular worldview advocates. Iran isn't pacifist, but would definitely like it if their geopolitical rivals would adopt pacifism.
    - cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
      It's frankly controversial to consider the US the arbiter of supposed democracy. Especially given the context of these press releases was right at the height of "we'll have Greenland one way or another" pronouncements. Anthropic showed their belly same as OpenAI anyways.
    - bugufu8f83 5mo ago
      You gave two statements which are different from what I quoted. The idea of "defend[ing] the United States and other democracies" and "defeat[ing] our autocratic adversaries" are always the stated reasons for US military action. Iraq was certainly an "autocratic adversary" and hundreds of thousands of people died from the war there. Vietnam was about "defending democracies" and resulted in millions of people dying. These are atrocities on an incomprehensible scale. The ethical objection is very simple. War is evil, and the military is in the business of war.
NitpickLawyer 5mo ago
And then regulatory capture it to death. Seriously, Anthropic is top notch in their coding models, but they are not the good guys in the tech vs. product for humanity's sake debate.
- dwa3592 5mo ago
  yeah but i don't think there's any large org which is 'good guys'. Anyone who wants to become a monopoly or very very large is probably suffering from some sort of a neural condition (psychosis, if plural) which we will study 100 years from now. Right now they are rewarded but I think our little minds forget to take the negative externalities into account. I am working on a short story on this topic which is set in 2100s, where most humans have internalized the concept of 'having enough' after the great conflict. But some specimen have started to show signs of this syndrome again, and neuroscientists and psychologists are grappling to understand where it originated from.
  - amunozo 5mo ago
    The difference is that Anthropic pretend they're the good guys, while the rest don't.
    - vavos 5mo ago
      It's like the Mike prince arc in the show billions
    - clbrmbr 5mo ago
      Come on, Anthropic ARE the good guys if there are any. Certainly the incentives of trillions will do what money does, but they have assembled an incredibly altruistic and philosophically-minded crew. I’m rooting for them and trying real hard not to get cynical.
      - wartywhoa23 5mo ago
        Cool story, akin to that of Buterin/Etherium one. The crew has nothing to do with intentions and moral qualities of their owners. (And even at that I highly doubt the "altruistic" claim to be true about people who work at one of the world's largest heaps of money.)
goatlover 5mo ago
Skynet is being built on the Ukrainian/Russian front lines.
- jesterson 5mo ago
  And it is sad some people are thinking Karpathy or Karp are persons of any benevolence.
siren2026 5mo ago
Exactly. This good guy ("AI Safety") versus bad guy is all marketing gimmicks. I'm old enough that it reminds me of Google "don't be evil". What I find worse is that some people actually believe Anthropic are really the good guys.
- solenoid0937 5mo ago
  You should chat with some people involved in AI safety, if you really think it's a farce.
  - siren2026 5mo ago
    Imagine being gullible enough to think any of those companies would ever chose AI safety over losing their monopolies in AI. AI safety is important. My point is: you should have zero trust in those companies to actually care about AI Safety besides the marketing and PR aspect of it. Incentives matter.
    - solenoid0937 5mo ago
      Dunno, Anthropic delayed Mythos and refused to break their red lines for the DoW. But you seem to harbor this irrational hatred for them and the AI safety crowd so I'm not sure this discussion has much value.
      - siren2026 5mo ago
        Delaying mythos has been the most effective free marketing campaign you could ever imagine. "Our model is so good and dangerous we cannot release it yet" giving you free press and coverage as you prove here once again. >> this irrational hatred for them and the AI safety crowd You seem to equal AI Safety with Anthropic. That's where I disagree completely. I love AI Safety but I will not make the obvious mistake in believing Anthropic have any goal in AI Safety beyond whatever will give them free marketing. Again, incentives matter. You seem to work for them or have vested interest in them. There is no point in continuing here as it is tough to make you understand something when your salary depends on you not understanding it.

Anthropic has drawn lines with the most powerful organization in the world, that OpenAI capitulated on within hours for a small contract.

dwa3592 5mo ago
100% and that was bold and set a good example, at least from the outside.
actualwitch 5mo ago
...and then silently got back to talks with DoD [0] and gave them the Mythos model. Separately, they went back on their promise to only develop models that they can guarantee are safe [1]. I reckon considering which country they are HQ'ed in, building skynet is in their destiny. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/01/pentagon-anthropic-blacklist-mythos-michael.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/01/pentagon-anthropic-blacklist... [1] https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/anthropic-drops-its-signature-safety-promise-and-rewrites-ai-guardrails https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/anthropic-...
- scottyah 5mo ago
  Lines drawn does not mean "refuse all communications". They were very clear that they wanted to continue the partnership, but adhering to the terms of the contract. I personally think that is the best stance- support the good work and avoid what they deem as bad.
siren2026 5mo ago
Let me rephrase this. Anthropic played a really well orchestrated marketing gimmick so that they would be in the headlines for a couple days bringing awareness to non-tech people on how they are supposedly the good guys. They then backpedaled all of this and are in contract with the DoD once the headlines passed. But this obviously worked as you now believe they are the good guys
- solenoid0937 5mo ago
  They didn't backpedal at all, you're spreading FUD. Their red lines are still in place. They are the only AI company with those red lines.
  - siren2026 5mo ago
    Ah yes, right [1] https://www.obsolete.pub/p/exclusive-anthropic-is-quietly-backpedalling https://www.obsolete.pub/p/exclusive-anthropic-is-quietly-ba... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/25/tech/anthropic-safety-policy-change https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/25/tech/anthropic-safety-pol... [3] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-dials-back-ai-safety-commitments-38257540 https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-dials-back-ai-safety-c...
    - albumen 5mo ago
      Those sources don’t claim Anthropic is crossing its red lines (AI-controlled weapons and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).
    - solenoid0937 5mo ago
      You didn't read your own sources. The red lines are still in place.
      - siren2026 5mo ago
        Oh I read them. If I had to bet I follow this more closely than you do. Some redlines are still in place. Not the same ones and it is very clear based on this precedent that red lines can be moved at any times whenever it is convenient for Anthropic as shown by the above articles. So as I said, all a marketing gimmick.
        solenoid0937 5mo ago
        Please quote exactly where the two red lines (autonomous robotic killbots on current-day models, domestic mass surveillance) have been lifted.
bugufu8f83 5mo ago
Their statement on this issue opened by emphasizing how eager they are to help kill people: >I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries. There is no universe where this can be described as anything close to ethical.
- fasterik 5mo ago
  It's not controversial to say that democracy is a more ethical form of government than autocracy. It's also not controversial to say that violence is sometimes justified when it's in self-defence or to prevent a greater injustice from happening. So what's the ethical objection to that statement?
  - xp84 5mo ago
    I wonder if GP subscribes to the narrative of moral equivalence between things the Iranian regime does (such as slaughtering crowds of anti-government protestors) and what Hamas does (such as the butchery and terror committed against innocent civilians on Oct 7th) and any deaths or injuries that occur directly attributable to a US military action. If so, then I suppose they'd say it's fair to condemn the US as evil because deaths have happened, after all. Pacifism and turning a blind eye to anything happening in another sovereign country seems like what that particular worldview advocates. Iran isn't pacifist, but would definitely like it if their geopolitical rivals would adopt pacifism.
  - cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
    It's frankly controversial to consider the US the arbiter of supposed democracy. Especially given the context of these press releases was right at the height of "we'll have Greenland one way or another" pronouncements. Anthropic showed their belly same as OpenAI anyways.
  - bugufu8f83 5mo ago
    You gave two statements which are different from what I quoted. The idea of "defend[ing] the United States and other democracies" and "defeat[ing] our autocratic adversaries" are always the stated reasons for US military action. Iraq was certainly an "autocratic adversary" and hundreds of thousands of people died from the war there. Vietnam was about "defending democracies" and resulted in millions of people dying. These are atrocities on an incomprehensible scale. The ethical objection is very simple. War is evil, and the military is in the business of war.

NitpickLawyer 5mo ago

And then regulatory capture it to death. Seriously, Anthropic is top notch in their coding models, but they are not the good guys in the tech vs. product for humanity's sake debate.

dwa3592 5mo ago
yeah but i don't think there's any large org which is 'good guys'. Anyone who wants to become a monopoly or very very large is probably suffering from some sort of a neural condition (psychosis, if plural) which we will study 100 years from now. Right now they are rewarded but I think our little minds forget to take the negative externalities into account. I am working on a short story on this topic which is set in 2100s, where most humans have internalized the concept of 'having enough' after the great conflict. But some specimen have started to show signs of this syndrome again, and neuroscientists and psychologists are grappling to understand where it originated from.
- amunozo 5mo ago
  The difference is that Anthropic pretend they're the good guys, while the rest don't.
  - vavos 5mo ago
    It's like the Mike prince arc in the show billions
  - clbrmbr 5mo ago
    Come on, Anthropic ARE the good guys if there are any. Certainly the incentives of trillions will do what money does, but they have assembled an incredibly altruistic and philosophically-minded crew. I’m rooting for them and trying real hard not to get cynical.
    - wartywhoa23 5mo ago
      Cool story, akin to that of Buterin/Etherium one. The crew has nothing to do with intentions and moral qualities of their owners. (And even at that I highly doubt the "altruistic" claim to be true about people who work at one of the world's largest heaps of money.)

goatlover 5mo ago

Skynet is being built on the Ukrainian/Russian front lines.

jesterson 5mo ago
And it is sad some people are thinking Karpathy or Karp are persons of any benevolence.

siren2026 5mo ago

Exactly. This good guy ("AI Safety") versus bad guy is all marketing gimmicks. I'm old enough that it reminds me of Google "don't be evil". What I find worse is that some people actually believe Anthropic are really the good guys.

solenoid0937 5mo ago
You should chat with some people involved in AI safety, if you really think it's a farce.
- siren2026 5mo ago
  Imagine being gullible enough to think any of those companies would ever chose AI safety over losing their monopolies in AI. AI safety is important. My point is: you should have zero trust in those companies to actually care about AI Safety besides the marketing and PR aspect of it. Incentives matter.
  - solenoid0937 5mo ago
    Dunno, Anthropic delayed Mythos and refused to break their red lines for the DoW. But you seem to harbor this irrational hatred for them and the AI safety crowd so I'm not sure this discussion has much value.
    - siren2026 5mo ago
      Delaying mythos has been the most effective free marketing campaign you could ever imagine. "Our model is so good and dangerous we cannot release it yet" giving you free press and coverage as you prove here once again. >> this irrational hatred for them and the AI safety crowd You seem to equal AI Safety with Anthropic. That's where I disagree completely. I love AI Safety but I will not make the obvious mistake in believing Anthropic have any goal in AI Safety beyond whatever will give them free marketing. Again, incentives matter. You seem to work for them or have vested interest in them. There is no point in continuing here as it is tough to make you understand something when your salary depends on you not understanding it.