3 ms·

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.

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.