3 ms·

Considering their apparent nerfing of the end user plans in favor of enterprise clients, is Anthropic still the "more ethical AI company" like everybody loves t

Considering their apparent nerfing of the end user plans in favor of enterprise clients, is Anthropic still the "more ethical AI company" like everybody loves to tell me all the time? Assuming this isn't just a supply issue on their side, nothing says "ethical AI" like only allowing mega corporations to use it through cost barriers.

Maken 4mo ago
The bar is just too low.
brianmcnulty 4mo ago
Why would you have ethics when you could get that IPO money instead?
fridder 4mo ago
More ethical in some areas, actively user hostile in others
estearum 4mo ago
You really misunderstand what AI-doom people are worried about if you think this is anywhere near the top (or middle, or bottom) of the list of concerns.
- throwaway894345 4mo ago
  Yeah, it's positively precious to think the specific pricing strategy for consumers is the overriding ethical concern with OpenAI, etc. I don't have any particularly strong affinity to any AI company, but comparing pricing to say mass surveillance is ... something else.
  - kyledrake 4mo ago
    Your beautiful straw man is negated by the fact that Anthropic seems quite eager to get back on the DoD gravy train https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/blacklisted-ai-company-anthropic-white-house-ease-tensions-ahead-ipo-sources-say-2026-06-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/blacklist...
    - estearum 4mo ago
      Where is your evidence that this is Anthropic backtracking on its ethical and contractual commitments rather than DOD backtracking on its blatantly illegal coercion (which it's almost certainly going to be successfully sued for)? Talk about a strawman!
      - kyledrake 4mo ago
        As someone that was in Minneapolis during the ICE raids, including one where a US citizen at a nearby restaurant was thrown in prison for 3 days despite having his passport on hand because he looked asian, it's hard for me to not equivocate the ethics of AI companies actively collaborating with the Trump administration as different flavors of ice cream.
        estearum 4mo ago
        Are the two analytical frameworks available to you just "black and white thinking" or "it's different flavors of ice cream?"
        kyledrake 4mo ago
        Are the personal attacks really necessary to make your argument?
        estearum 4mo ago
        Fair point! Edited to remove.
    - ygjb 4mo ago
      Setting aside the simple fact that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, the reality is that regardless of how Anthropic feels, it is becoming clear that many, if not all countries regard AI developments as strategic technologies (and they should). Anthropic needs to be at least somewhat in the good graces of a capricious administration that is already under pressure from businesses and citizens to regulate AI companies across multiple different domains, whether it's energy consumption, job displacement, military and defense applications, surveillance, etc. If Anthropic wants to survive, they need to acquire influence with the government that most impacts them as an American company, and a massive exporter of services in the AI space to other countries, otherwise they could get locked down and locked out of the market for national security reasons. It sucks, but sometimes the survival choice is to make an ethical compromise in hopes that you can still be around to make better decisions later.
- Jackson__ 4mo ago
  If you can't trust them to act ethically on the small scale, why would you expect that to turn around once it gets to a larger much more important scale? How many government sanctioned school bombings does it take for them to quit working with said government? For now we know that number is somewhere between infinity and 1.
  - estearum 4mo ago
    It literally does not register as "unethical" at any scale to have different products or prices for different customer tiers. The question of collaboration with USG is a much more complex one, but is not the one raised above. Edit: I'll also add that I doubt any AI-doom people "trust" Anthropic per se. The entire angle of questioning – again – misunderstands the AI-doom argument. You appear to think that if companies behave unethically, they cannot be trusted and they will not produce good outcomes, inversely: if they behave ethically, they can be trusted, and they will produce good outcomes. Any competent AI-doomer would argue that ethics or trust are essentially irrelevant. The entire problem is that people can act totally reasonably, even ethically, and this is not a guarantee of good outcomes. Situations can be created in which completely ethical, reasonable behavior actually produces a bad outcome. You do not need to assume people are bad in order to produce a bad outcome, and inversely you cannot assume that you will get a good outcome from good people. "Arms races" are one class of situations that often have this characteristic. "Bureaucracy" is another class that we encounter a lot in daily life. There's a lot of them!
xvector 4mo ago
Yup - who cares about x-risk or red lines for domestic mass surveillance anyways? I draw my red lines at prioritizing profitable customers when heavily resource constrained. That's the true definition of evilness!
wongarsu 4mo ago
I wouldn't call Anthropic ethical. But between Anthropic and OpenAI, Anthropic is the more ethical one
DonsDiscountGas 4mo ago
I don't think offering a product under a certain set of terms obligates a company to maintain that offering forever. The bait and switch is certainly annoying but seeing as they're very upfront about it you can't say you weren't warned. Don't like it? Don't use it.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
eli 4mo ago
It's unethical to price it in a way not everyone can afford?
MattSayar 4mo ago
It smells like an architecture-related issue to me. They wanted to release the model asap, but they're still implementing the fine-grained controls to constrain the model to non-subscription users.
dllrr 4mo ago
They said they would release it back into subscriptions as capacity allows in the future. If they don't, people are going to point back at it and rake them over the coals.

Maken 4mo ago

The bar is just too low.

brianmcnulty 4mo ago

Why would you have ethics when you could get that IPO money instead?

fridder 4mo ago

More ethical in some areas, actively user hostile in others

estearum 4mo ago

You really misunderstand what AI-doom people are worried about if you think this is anywhere near the top (or middle, or bottom) of the list of concerns.

throwaway894345 4mo ago
Yeah, it's positively precious to think the specific pricing strategy for consumers is the overriding ethical concern with OpenAI, etc. I don't have any particularly strong affinity to any AI company, but comparing pricing to say mass surveillance is ... something else.
- kyledrake 4mo ago
  Your beautiful straw man is negated by the fact that Anthropic seems quite eager to get back on the DoD gravy train https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/blacklisted-ai-company-anthropic-white-house-ease-tensions-ahead-ipo-sources-say-2026-06-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/blacklist...
  - estearum 4mo ago
    Where is your evidence that this is Anthropic backtracking on its ethical and contractual commitments rather than DOD backtracking on its blatantly illegal coercion (which it's almost certainly going to be successfully sued for)? Talk about a strawman!
    - kyledrake 4mo ago
      As someone that was in Minneapolis during the ICE raids, including one where a US citizen at a nearby restaurant was thrown in prison for 3 days despite having his passport on hand because he looked asian, it's hard for me to not equivocate the ethics of AI companies actively collaborating with the Trump administration as different flavors of ice cream.
      - estearum 4mo ago
        Are the two analytical frameworks available to you just "black and white thinking" or "it's different flavors of ice cream?"
        kyledrake 4mo ago
        Are the personal attacks really necessary to make your argument?
        estearum 4mo ago
        Fair point! Edited to remove.
  - ygjb 4mo ago
    Setting aside the simple fact that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, the reality is that regardless of how Anthropic feels, it is becoming clear that many, if not all countries regard AI developments as strategic technologies (and they should). Anthropic needs to be at least somewhat in the good graces of a capricious administration that is already under pressure from businesses and citizens to regulate AI companies across multiple different domains, whether it's energy consumption, job displacement, military and defense applications, surveillance, etc. If Anthropic wants to survive, they need to acquire influence with the government that most impacts them as an American company, and a massive exporter of services in the AI space to other countries, otherwise they could get locked down and locked out of the market for national security reasons. It sucks, but sometimes the survival choice is to make an ethical compromise in hopes that you can still be around to make better decisions later.
Jackson__ 4mo ago
If you can't trust them to act ethically on the small scale, why would you expect that to turn around once it gets to a larger much more important scale? How many government sanctioned school bombings does it take for them to quit working with said government? For now we know that number is somewhere between infinity and 1.
- estearum 4mo ago
  It literally does not register as "unethical" at any scale to have different products or prices for different customer tiers. The question of collaboration with USG is a much more complex one, but is not the one raised above. Edit: I'll also add that I doubt any AI-doom people "trust" Anthropic per se. The entire angle of questioning – again – misunderstands the AI-doom argument. You appear to think that if companies behave unethically, they cannot be trusted and they will not produce good outcomes, inversely: if they behave ethically, they can be trusted, and they will produce good outcomes. Any competent AI-doomer would argue that ethics or trust are essentially irrelevant. The entire problem is that people can act totally reasonably, even ethically, and this is not a guarantee of good outcomes. Situations can be created in which completely ethical, reasonable behavior actually produces a bad outcome. You do not need to assume people are bad in order to produce a bad outcome, and inversely you cannot assume that you will get a good outcome from good people. "Arms races" are one class of situations that often have this characteristic. "Bureaucracy" is another class that we encounter a lot in daily life. There's a lot of them!

xvector 4mo ago

Yup - who cares about x-risk or red lines for domestic mass surveillance anyways? I draw my red lines at prioritizing profitable customers when heavily resource constrained. That's the true definition of evilness!

wongarsu 4mo ago

I wouldn't call Anthropic ethical. But between Anthropic and OpenAI, Anthropic is the more ethical one

DonsDiscountGas 4mo ago

I don't think offering a product under a certain set of terms obligates a company to maintain that offering forever. The bait and switch is certainly annoying but seeing as they're very upfront about it you can't say you weren't warned. Don't like it? Don't use it.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

eli 4mo ago

It's unethical to price it in a way not everyone can afford?

MattSayar 4mo ago

It smells like an architecture-related issue to me. They wanted to release the model asap, but they're still implementing the fine-grained controls to constrain the model to non-subscription users.

dllrr 4mo ago

They said they would release it back into subscriptions as capacity allows in the future. If they don't, people are going to point back at it and rake them over the coals.