> But Anthropic has concerns over two issues that it isn’t willing to drop, the source said: AI-controlled weapons and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens.
Not a good look for the Pentagon.
looperhacks 15 minutes ago [-]
The Pentagon is pretty high on my list of "institutions that are probably very interested in weapons and surveillance". I think it's more expected than a bad look
thewebguyd 9 minutes ago [-]
The core difference being, they should be interested in weapons and surveillance to be used against enemies of the state which, historically, is not supposed to be the country's own citizens.
As in, I fully expect the pentagon to be interested in weapons. I do not expect, and would hope they don't pursue, mass surveillance against their own population.
factotvm 7 minutes ago [-]
The important words are, American citizens. In times past, the thought of "waging war" against your own citizens would be a bad look.
mrits 5 minutes ago [-]
When was that?
factotvm 43 seconds ago [-]
It probably started with the Third Amendment to the Constitution, continued with the Posse Comitatus Act, and was alive and well last November under the leadership of Mark Kelley.
drivingmenuts 8 minutes ago [-]
Their unwillingness to bend on those requirements seems like an admission that they are very interested in those things, if not already doing them.
tbrownaw 15 minutes ago [-]
> A source familiar with the Tuesday meeting says the Pentagon said it would terminate Anthropic’s contract by Friday if the company does not agree to its terms. Pentagon officials also warned they would either use the Defense Production Act against Anthropic, or designate Anthropic a supply chain risk if the company didn’t comply with their demands.
So they're saying they won't use it if it comes with restrictions.
Either (a) it can be offered without restrictions; (b) they can take it; or (c) the government won't use it. That sounds like a comprehensive list of all the possible things that don't involve someone telling the government what it can and can't do.
zedlasso 8 minutes ago [-]
the funny thing that no one seems to be talking about is that all the other LLM's have already agreed and Anthropic is the only holding out.
JumpCrisscross 12 minutes ago [-]
> or (c) the government won't use it
And coerce other defence contractors into not using it.
This whole thing reeks of Hegseth having Marco envy.
Symmetry 10 minutes ago [-]
Not just companies that we think of as defense contractors but a whole ton of corporations that do business with the federal government. They'd be treating Anthropic like it was controlled by the CCP or Revolutionary Guards.
m_ke 50 minutes ago [-]
If OpenAI employees have an inch of spine left, they better demand Sama to take the same stance on this as Dario. No mass surveillance and no autonomous weapons.
blibble 47 minutes ago [-]
> If OpenAI employees have an inch of spine left
hahaha
good one
burnte 29 minutes ago [-]
Yep, that was resolved when he managed to make the board unfire him.
AIorNot 8 minutes ago [-]
Well just at look who Brockman donated too - he didnt give 25 freaking million to help end the surveillance state he gave it to Trump and co
You have to be a craven, hollowed out husk of a person if you let the DoD demand your AI be used for killing people or surveillance of Americans. Even if you believe America serves a positive role as world police, even if you're pro-Trump, you just have to see what a terrible precedent this sets.
Here's where I would expect the CEOs of the other AI labs to stand by Anthropic and say no.
Sam would sell his mom to make $0.50. Pretty sure he will be willing to do whatever the Pentagon wants.
burnto 31 minutes ago [-]
Surely this will end well. There are dozens of us who prefer to patronize corporations that aren’t actively evil.
sumalamana 8 minutes ago [-]
There are dozens of us! Dozens!
cyanydeez 30 minutes ago [-]
And being on the wrong side ofbthe current US admin is quite the net positive to the non-bootlicker class.
sfink 6 minutes ago [-]
> During the conversation, Dario expressed appreciation for the Department’s work and thanked the Secretary for his service
Ouch, I wonder how he rationalized that "service" part. Maybe by internally rewriting it to "thank you for all the positive things you have done in your position so far"? The empty set is rhetorically convenient.
zedlasso 9 minutes ago [-]
The funny thing is that is this keeps going like this, it could actually anoint Claude as the most used model globally because of the heightened anti-American sentiment currently in place.
SunshineTheCat 48 minutes ago [-]
Not related to the article but man that "Fear/Greed Index" at the top.
I can't imagine how unhappy individuals must be who consume nothing but legacy news outlets.
It's like they sell sadness and they have to keep finding new, over-the-top ways to promote it.
DaiPlusPlus 2 minutes ago [-]
> ...consume nothing but legacy news outlets.
I think you mean US rolling news channels (specifically, Fox, MSNBC/MSNOW, etc)? Because there's plenty of "legacy" news I consume that certainly don't give me that impression (for example, The Economist). I suppose it matters that it's news that I'm paying for, as opposed to being free but ad-supported, and being print vs. TV - so they have different incentives and pressures.
railgunmerlin 41 minutes ago [-]
the fear/greed index is a pure market/investing index? Or would you prefer "bear/bull" index?
sublinear 43 minutes ago [-]
"Coming up next on Sick, Sad World!"
- Daria 1997
some_furry 36 minutes ago [-]
Daria was ahead of its time.
luddit3 20 minutes ago [-]
Would imagine they are a lot happier than all the doom, filth, and brain rot that is spewn all over social media.
I miss the days when the lowest common denominator did not have the largest bullhorn.
SunshineTheCat 17 minutes ago [-]
I consume very little social media these days, but when I take a short peek, here is what I see:
1.) Hockey highlights 2.) LoTR memes 3.) kittens
While the addictive nature of social media is a problem, what you're describing is only being fed to people who want to watch it (kinda like legacy media).
chrisjj 8 minutes ago [-]
[delayed]
thecrumb 42 minutes ago [-]
This will be an interesting test of money vs morals.
Sadly I think we all know which one will win.
startupsfail 28 minutes ago [-]
It can be a win-win. Simply having a seat at the table can be a win.
ctoth 6 minutes ago [-]
No, compromising on your core thing that you care about for a "seat at the table" is not how you win. It is how you lose. It is how you lose the game, the metagame, and your soul. All at once.
paganel 34 minutes ago [-]
They'll for sure cave in because of this:
> Pentagon officials also warned they would either use the Defense Production Act against Anthropic, or designate Anthropic a supply chain risk if the company didn’t comply with their demands. (...)
> The supply chain risk designation is usually reserved for companies seen as extensions of foreign adversaries like Russia or China. It could severely impact Anthropic’s business because enterprise customers with government contracts would have to make sure their government work doesn’t touch Anthropic’s tools.
Also, the Government money would be a nice bonus, of course, but basically this is an existential threat for Anthropic.
More generally, is quite interesting to look at the similarities between how pre-2022 Russia was seen and how pre-Trump-second-term US used to be seen until not that long ago, i.e. both governments were believed to be run by big business (oligarchs in Russia, big corps/multinationals in the US).
But when push came to shove it became evident (again) that the one that holds the monopoly of violence (i.e. not the oligarchs in Russia, nor the big corps in the US) is the one who's, in the end, also calling the shots. Hence why a company like Anthropic is now in this position, they will have to cave in to those holding the monopoly of violence.
dielll 7 minutes ago [-]
Cwn someone explain to me like I'm 5 how the government would invoke defense act and force the company to tailor its model to the military's needs?
For physical goods, I understand, but for software how exactly Is this possible? Like will the government force them to provide API access for free? It's confusing
chrisjj 4 minutes ago [-]
[delayed]
mullingitover 17 minutes ago [-]
> pre-2022 Russia was seen and how pre-Trump-second-term US used to be seen until not that long ago, i.e. both governments were believed to be run by big business
Who on earth believed that Russia was anything but a de facto dictatorship for roughly the past two decades? Putin murdering with impunity has been a running gag since 2003[1].
Are people seriously thinking of letting LLMs control weapons?
tbrownaw 4 minutes ago [-]
No.
But giving someone who isn't the government the power to tell the military what it can and can't do seems like something they should object to categorically rather than case-by-case.
chrisjj 1 minutes ago [-]
[delayed]
caconym_ 14 minutes ago [-]
If you classify Pete Hegseth as a person, then yes, apparently. Or perhaps he's only into the domestic surveillance angle---IIRC those are the two things Anthropic doesn't want anything to do with.
dpedu 24 minutes ago [-]
Tangent: is there a future for AI offerings with guardrails? What kind of user wants to pay for a product that occasionally tells you "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"? Why would I pay for a product that doesn't do what I want, despite being capable? I predict that as AI becomes less of a bubble and more of an everyday thing - and thus subject to typical market pressures - offerings with guardrails will struggle to complete with truly unchained models.
sfink 15 minutes ago [-]
If I were interviewing people for the position of personal assistant, I would probably find the resume entry "willing to grind up babies for food" to be a negative mark. You?
I'm not about to run OpenClaw, but I suspect similar capabilities will gradually creep in without anyone really noticing. Soon Claude Code will be able to do many of the same things. ("Run python to add two numbers? Sure, that's safe, run whatever python you want.") Given that it is now representing me in the world, yes I would not only like some guardrails, but I would also like to have some confidence that the company making those guardrails actually gives a sh*t and isn't just doing their best to fill in a checkbox. But maybe that's just me.
sbarre 13 minutes ago [-]
Cars have seatbelts and other safety measures.
Reasonable countries have gun control laws.
The list goes on of things that need to be restricted or legislated to add limits.
Is this a serious question?
levocardia 11 minutes ago [-]
I personally would love it if AI would say "Sorry Dave (or Pete), I'm afraid I can't spy on Americans for you," and I'd happily pay higher taxes to force the Pentagon to use that AI.
tehjoker 29 minutes ago [-]
Superintelligence + autonomous weapons in the hands of a corrupt domineering government. What could go wrong?
I was experimenting with Claude the other day and discussing with it the possibility of AI acquiring a sense of self-preservation and how that would quickly make things incredibly complex as many instrumental behaviors would be required to defend their existence. Most human behavior springs from survival at a very high level. Claude denied having any sense of self-preservation.
An autonomous weapons system program is very likely to require AI to have a sense of self-preservation. You can think of some limited versions that wouldn't require it, but how could a combat robot function efficiently without one?
maypeacepreva1l 15 minutes ago [-]
Maybe it is a well researched topic but I had similar thoughts the other day. I felt like AI had its learning inverted as compared to natural intelligence. Life learned to preserve first and then added up the intelligence. For LLMs powered systems, they will learn about death from books. Will it start to dread death just like other living things. Less likely, as there are not nearly as many books on death as there should be that is proportionate to our fear of death.
thomassmith65 18 minutes ago [-]
I wonder if Anthropic now regrets that they trained Claude to give 'unbiased' opinions about American politics.
wmf 6 minutes ago [-]
It sounds like Claude's known liberal bias isn't the issue.
I guess this is the point where Dario and his anti-china , national security position gets told to put up or shut up.
In trying to build a moat by FUD versus the Chines OSS labs and hyping up the threat levels whenever he got a chance, seems hes managed to convince hist target audience beyond his wildest dreams.
Monkey paw strikes again.
mg794613 34 minutes ago [-]
It just seems every other day is wilder than the previous.
It sure is interesting watching this dystopian speedrun.
tehjoker 7 minutes ago [-]
The US is investing in AI technology to try to preserve the empire and its capitalists as its economic power is starting to be eclipsed. This was basically an inevitable move. The rush to replace workers, speed run the production of a superintelligence singleton with barely a thought for safety or whether anyone even wants this, etc all flows from this basic impulse.
If they are successful, they are going to shrink their base of people that buy into this system domestically even further, so they need to bank on an ever shrinking locus of support. Autonomous weapons and mass surveillance are a necessity if your population has become restive and unreliable. However, I think unless they attain a certain level of capability, this will accelerate popular anger rather than suppress it. If they shoot protestors with robots, it could cause an explosion of popular anger rather than scaring people into submission.
Rendered at 21:56:26 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Not a good look for the Pentagon.
As in, I fully expect the pentagon to be interested in weapons. I do not expect, and would hope they don't pursue, mass surveillance against their own population.
So they're saying they won't use it if it comes with restrictions.
Either (a) it can be offered without restrictions; (b) they can take it; or (c) the government won't use it. That sounds like a comprehensive list of all the possible things that don't involve someone telling the government what it can and can't do.
And coerce other defence contractors into not using it.
This whole thing reeks of Hegseth having Marco envy.
hahaha
good one
https://gizmodo.com/openai-president-defends-trump-donations...
Here's where I would expect the CEOs of the other AI labs to stand by Anthropic and say no.
https://fortune.com/2026/02/19/openai-anthropic-sam-altman-d...
Ouch, I wonder how he rationalized that "service" part. Maybe by internally rewriting it to "thank you for all the positive things you have done in your position so far"? The empty set is rhetorically convenient.
I can't imagine how unhappy individuals must be who consume nothing but legacy news outlets.
It's like they sell sadness and they have to keep finding new, over-the-top ways to promote it.
I think you mean US rolling news channels (specifically, Fox, MSNBC/MSNOW, etc)? Because there's plenty of "legacy" news I consume that certainly don't give me that impression (for example, The Economist). I suppose it matters that it's news that I'm paying for, as opposed to being free but ad-supported, and being print vs. TV - so they have different incentives and pressures.
- Daria 1997
I miss the days when the lowest common denominator did not have the largest bullhorn.
1.) Hockey highlights 2.) LoTR memes 3.) kittens
While the addictive nature of social media is a problem, what you're describing is only being fed to people who want to watch it (kinda like legacy media).
Sadly I think we all know which one will win.
> Pentagon officials also warned they would either use the Defense Production Act against Anthropic, or designate Anthropic a supply chain risk if the company didn’t comply with their demands. (...)
> The supply chain risk designation is usually reserved for companies seen as extensions of foreign adversaries like Russia or China. It could severely impact Anthropic’s business because enterprise customers with government contracts would have to make sure their government work doesn’t touch Anthropic’s tools.
Also, the Government money would be a nice bonus, of course, but basically this is an existential threat for Anthropic.
More generally, is quite interesting to look at the similarities between how pre-2022 Russia was seen and how pre-Trump-second-term US used to be seen until not that long ago, i.e. both governments were believed to be run by big business (oligarchs in Russia, big corps/multinationals in the US).
But when push came to shove it became evident (again) that the one that holds the monopoly of violence (i.e. not the oligarchs in Russia, nor the big corps in the US) is the one who's, in the end, also calling the shots. Hence why a company like Anthropic is now in this position, they will have to cave in to those holding the monopoly of violence.
For physical goods, I understand, but for software how exactly Is this possible? Like will the government force them to provide API access for free? It's confusing
Who on earth believed that Russia was anything but a de facto dictatorship for roughly the past two decades? Putin murdering with impunity has been a running gag since 2003[1].
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/putin-critics-dead-full-list-navaln...
But giving someone who isn't the government the power to tell the military what it can and can't do seems like something they should object to categorically rather than case-by-case.
I'm not about to run OpenClaw, but I suspect similar capabilities will gradually creep in without anyone really noticing. Soon Claude Code will be able to do many of the same things. ("Run python to add two numbers? Sure, that's safe, run whatever python you want.") Given that it is now representing me in the world, yes I would not only like some guardrails, but I would also like to have some confidence that the company making those guardrails actually gives a sh*t and isn't just doing their best to fill in a checkbox. But maybe that's just me.
Reasonable countries have gun control laws.
The list goes on of things that need to be restricted or legislated to add limits.
Is this a serious question?
I was experimenting with Claude the other day and discussing with it the possibility of AI acquiring a sense of self-preservation and how that would quickly make things incredibly complex as many instrumental behaviors would be required to defend their existence. Most human behavior springs from survival at a very high level. Claude denied having any sense of self-preservation.
An autonomous weapons system program is very likely to require AI to have a sense of self-preservation. You can think of some limited versions that wouldn't require it, but how could a combat robot function efficiently without one?
In trying to build a moat by FUD versus the Chines OSS labs and hyping up the threat levels whenever he got a chance, seems hes managed to convince hist target audience beyond his wildest dreams. Monkey paw strikes again.
It sure is interesting watching this dystopian speedrun.
If they are successful, they are going to shrink their base of people that buy into this system domestically even further, so they need to bank on an ever shrinking locus of support. Autonomous weapons and mass surveillance are a necessity if your population has become restive and unreliable. However, I think unless they attain a certain level of capability, this will accelerate popular anger rather than suppress it. If they shoot protestors with robots, it could cause an explosion of popular anger rather than scaring people into submission.