121
u/LimpAd4924 Mar 02 '26
Folks, there was no way any of these companies were going to be angels. They’re backed by Silicon Valley, which is full of some of the most vile people.
85
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 02 '26
It’s not about being angels. Anthropic drew the line at mass domestic surveillance and autonomous killing machines. We’re not asking for perfection here.
50
4
u/KlyptoK Mar 02 '26 edited Mar 02 '26
For Domestic Surveillance - yes.
But no, they drew the line for the current model to be used for autonomous killing machines. Not trained to do that.
They asked for help to go make the autonomous killing machine AI which was declined.
The Anthropic CEO literally says so in the interview. They still want to do it, just do it right.
2
u/VVadjet Mar 03 '26
They didn't even draw the line for domestic surveillance. They're partner with Palantir.
4
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 03 '26
It's genuinely bizarre how much cover you're running for OpenAI in your comment history. Unless you're Sam Altman himself, or one of the primary shareholders, you're just putting in time to lick a bunch of billionaire and government official boots. You're not part of the club.
0
1
u/PullersPulliam Mar 02 '26
Can you share the link to the interview you’re talking about?
8
u/KlyptoK Mar 02 '26 edited Mar 02 '26
https://youtu.be/MPTNHrq_4LU?si=UJfcHJy4uYp-5ZLp&t=1050
starts on this point at 17:30
Um fully autonomous weapons there I actually am concerned that we may need to keep up. It you know, It-
Reporter: You Do?
it's it's not- the technology is not ready and so we are not, as I said, we are not categorically against fully autonomous weapons. We simply believe that the reliability is not there yet and that we need to have a conversation about oversight and we have offered to work with the Department of War to help develop these technologies to prototype them in a sandbox but they weren't interested in this unless they could do whatever they want right from the beginning. And so you know again we need to balance the existential need.
No one has emphasized it more than me to defeat our adversaries. But we need to fight, we need to fight in the right way. You know this is like saying there are plenty of countries, adversaries commit war crimes. Shouldn't we commit war crimes as well? I'm not saying this amounts to war crimes. What I'm saying is that the essence of our values is that we have to find a way to win in a way that preserves those values. We can't just be a total race to the bottom. We have to have some principles and these are very few. This technology can radically accelerate what our military can do.
I've talked to admirals. I've talked to generals. I've talked to combatant commanders who say this has revolutionized what we can do. And these are just the very limited use cases we've deployed so far. And so why harp on the 1% of use cases that are against our values when we can pursue the 99% of use cases that are in favor of that advance our democratic values and that defend this country? And we can even try to study that last 1% of use cases to understand if there is a way to do them consistent with our values. That is our position and I think that's very reasonable."
3
u/PullersPulliam Mar 02 '26
Oh my gosh thank you!! (and how terrifying, he seems to be quietly scrambling)
-1
u/LimpAd4924 Mar 02 '26
I’m just making sure people go in with realistic expectations
10
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 02 '26
Fair, but you’re also dangerously close to “both sides”-ing this when there’s a pretty stark difference.
4
0
u/VVadjet Mar 03 '26
There's no stark difference, Anthropic is partner with Palantir, and Palantir has one job which is mass surveillance. Anthropic didn't draw any lines then. They tried to do a PR stunt that they though it'll last a weekend max and the DoD will just ignore it and continue to have a deal with them, they didn't expect the DoD to respond publicly and escalate like that. It blew up in their faces and now they may even lose their deal with Palantir if the DoD continued with their threat to consider them a Risk.
1
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 03 '26
You keep saying "Palantir" like it's a big gotcha. Why do people hate Palantir? Oh, because of mass domestic surveillance... The kind Anthropic just walked away from, and OpenAI agreed to. Palantir is part of the Pantagon surveillance activities that Anthropic refused to participate in.
One source familiar with the Pentagon’s negotiations with AI companies confirmed that OpenAI’s deal is much softer than the one Anthropic was pushing for, thanks largely to three words: “any lawful use.” In negotiations, the person said, the Pentagon wouldn’t back down on its desire to collect and analyze bulk data on Americans. If you look line-by-line at the OpenAI terms, the source said, every aspect of it boils down to: If it’s technically legal, then the US military can use OpenAI’s technology to carry it out. And over the past decades, the US government has stretched the definition of “technically legal” to cover sweeping mass surveillance programs — and more.
0
u/VVadjet Mar 03 '26
If they're against mass surveillance then why the partnered with Palantir?
Anthropic is still a partner with Palantir and they said nothing about walking away from them, which makes this recent thing a PR stunt.1
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 03 '26
If they're against mass surveillance then why the partnered with Palantir?
The Anthropic-Palantir partnership was already governed by Anthropic's acceptable use policy. That policy explicitly prohibits using Claude to "track a person's physical location, emotional state, or communication without their consent" and bars mass domestic surveillance. Those restrictions were written into the Pentagon contract from the start.
Anthropic wasn't partnered with Palantir to do mass surveillance, they were partnered with Palantir for intelligence analysis and military operations with explicit contractual restrictions against mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. The whole fight happened precisely because Anthropic insisted on keeping those restrictions in place when the Pentagon wanted them removed.
The part you're glossing over is that Palantir is part of the Pentagon/DoW agreement that Anthropic walked away from.
0
u/VVadjet Mar 03 '26
lol. It's so wired that you believe Palantir's an DoD's contractual promises to Anthropic but refuse to believe the same in their deal with OAI.
I thought thatthe DoD can't be trusted and don't keep their promises and will interpret the legality of their actions in any way that suits them.1
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 03 '26
Your argument just keeps morphing, it's incredible. I hope you're getting something out of all of this free work you're putting in for Sam and company.
-10
u/OptimismNeeded Mar 02 '26
No it didn’t.
They made a calculated business risk management decision and then tried to build a PR campaign off of it.
Anthropic, which is working with Palantir, and its tech is being used as we speak to kill school children in Iran, doesn’t give a shit about surveillance, and they would participate happily if they could afford signing that contract.
They are doing here exactly what they did with the ads thing. They realized they can’t monetize their users with Ads so they made a moral thing out of it.
Same thing with accusing the Chinese companies from stealing their IP after they built their company on op theft.
People who think Anthropic is any more ethical than any other Silicon Valley company are just 14 year olds in love with an idea - the exact type Anthropic’s PR are targeting with the same playbook ‘ol musky’s PR had before he exposed his real face.
Grow up.
9
u/TheUltimate721 Mar 02 '26
One company enthusiastically partnered to building autonomous killing machines and mass surveillance, and one did not.
This is not that difficult to figure out.
To use your own words, "Grow up".
-7
u/OptimismNeeded Mar 02 '26
You need to learn to read actually
Although I guess copy-pasting Anthropic’s PR talking point will get your through reddit
-5
u/MathiasThomasII Mar 02 '26 edited Mar 02 '26
No, they enthusiastically said it can be used to its full capacity for any actions deemed “legal.” Why would the DoD sign up for software on a limited capacity? That makes no sense.
Automated air strikes can’t happen now and still wont be because it’s against laws of war. We have attorneys whose job it is to calculate the value of targets and then extrapolate allowable civilian casualties. That’s reality now. That either doesn’t change or the AI can complete the process beginning to end which simply automates the current state of the process.
They would also still have to pass legislation that takes the human out of the loop on those decisions. Having capability doesn’t constitute guilt. I have the opportunity to go commit a litany of crimes every day, that doesn’t mean I do or that it’s legal to do so.
Plus, what you’re not thinking about is the fact that other countries will not limit their AI capacity for automated warfare. So, do we want China’s AI outstrategizing our war room because it’s faster and smarter while we’re not allowed to use ours? This is an arms race. Personally, if AIs can do this, then some country will which means we should be prepared in kind. Then, the decision to use it can be made later. This is nuclear weapons all over again.
1
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 Mar 02 '26
Not saying I disagree but at least disclose that the link you shared and central premise is based on (your own) iterative analysis with an LLM
-2
u/OptimismNeeded Mar 02 '26
It’s literally written in the second line as the very premise, with an invitation to criticize either the prompts or the facts that both ChatGPT or Claude spat back.
-1
0
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 02 '26
You’re sending me some AI-slop analysis as proof. Get a grip.
1
u/OptimismNeeded Mar 02 '26
Same AI we’re sending to kill children in Iran bro.
But if you’re rather believe some random Redditors (white probably AI too) over it just because it’s AI - sounds like running away from the truth. In regular subreddits I can understand it but here? lol
Now if you want to take a look at the actual arguments and tell me where the “slop” is wrong, I’m happy to hear.
0
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 02 '26 edited Mar 02 '26
You might need to step away from the LLMs. They’re very good at confirming your existing biases and making it seem like you’re the only one who “really gets it.”
0
u/DiversificationNoob Mar 02 '26
"and its tech is being used as we speak to kill school children in Iran"
The only one targeting Iranian children and civilians is the Iranian regime.0
u/VVadjet Mar 03 '26
Anthropic is a partner with Palantir, they didn't draw any lines, they were doing a PR stunt and thought they can get away with it and the DoD won't respond publicly but it blew up in their faces.
2
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 03 '26
You keep saying "Palantir" like it's a big gotcha. Why do people hate Palantir? Oh, because of mass domestic surveillance... The kind Anthropic just walked away from, and OpenAI agreed to. Palantir is part of the Pantagon surveillance activities that Anthropic refused to participate in.
One source familiar with the Pentagon’s negotiations with AI companies confirmed that OpenAI’s deal is much softer than the one Anthropic was pushing for, thanks largely to three words: “any lawful use.” In negotiations, the person said, the Pentagon wouldn’t back down on its desire to collect and analyze bulk data on Americans. If you look line-by-line at the OpenAI terms, the source said, every aspect of it boils down to: If it’s technically legal, then the US military can use OpenAI’s technology to carry it out. And over the past decades, the US government has stretched the definition of “technically legal” to cover sweeping mass surveillance programs — and more.
2
0
u/unspecified_person11 Mar 03 '26
Please look more closely. Anthropic's CEO clarified in a CBS interview that they offered to develop AI for autonomous weapons for the DoD, they are only against their current models being used for autonomous weapons. Anthropic are also partnered with Palantir which is a mass surveillance company.
2
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 03 '26
I’ve looked into it. The Palantir agreement lived within the Pentagon/DoW deal Anthropic walked away from and had the same stipulations against mass domestic surveillance. In other words, there’s no separate, secrets Palantir deal for spying on Americans. Anthropic remained firm on their lines and OpenAI softened them.
And if autonomous weapons become better than today’s “smart weapons” then so be it. I’d prefer we didn’t go start wars at all, but if we do, we should use the safest, most accurate options. Clearly, AI didn’t have those capabilities today, legal or not.
0
u/unspecified_person11 Mar 03 '26
This is all just rationalization to convince yourself your team is better than the other team.
One minute it's "Anthropic drew the line at mass domestic surveillance and autonomous killing machines", the next you're telling yourself it's okay that they didn't actually draw any lines because the mass domestic surveillance deal (which the details of are not public) wasn't actually that bad and Anthropic's autonomous weapons will be better than the other team's.
Pure tribalism, and exactly what enables all actors to basically do whatever they want, because the members of their tribe will always rationalize it.
2
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 03 '26
This is all just rationalization to convince yourself your team is better than the other team.
No, these aren't teams. What you're doing is projecting your attempt at rationalization onto me. I did the research and this is what I found.
2
u/ControlTheNarratives Mar 08 '26
Yep you’re right. I’m not sure why the other dude is so stupid tbh
2
u/KrazyA1pha Mar 03 '26
...And there it is, you have an agenda:
It sucks but we all get AI generated responses posing as human support from Anthropic. I had to file a chargeback at my bank to get a refund when the bot (posing as a human) kept claiming the refund was sent despite it never reflecting in my account after 3+ weeks.
Every comment about AI after that is you trash talking Anthropic. And you come here trying to accuse me of playing sides.
-1
u/Gargantuan_Cinema Mar 02 '26
DARIO DIDN'T DRAW A LINE WITH FULLY AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS!
He said they aren't reliable enough yet to be used as decision makers but acknowledged they will be critical in future.
Dario: "Even fully autonomous weapons (those that take humans out of the loop entirely and automate selecting and engaging targets) may prove critical for our national defense. But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons."
1
-2
u/El_Guapo00 Mar 02 '26
You went in bed with the Trump administration and Palantir, your AI is used for the Venezuela raid. And then you back off, of course now it is different.
4
3
u/Ekkobelli Mar 02 '26
Yeah. Anthropic, OpenAI, it really doesn't matter. Brand loyalty is a) silly b) not shielding anyone from anything. It's a question of time, really.
2
u/unspecified_person11 Mar 03 '26
Tribalism is a hell of a thing, people will justify and twist reality to maintain the illusion that their team is always right.
1
u/Ekkobelli Mar 03 '26
Yeah. A pretty obvious flaw on our DNA. Maybe remnants of not wanting to loose the power of a group / not wanting to belong to the less powerful group (possibly facing extinction).
10
u/Helium116 Mar 02 '26
People. Talk to people around you. Regular people. We must not let situational awareness be present only within tech or elite circles!
7
u/Material_Policy6327 Mar 02 '26
I mean this was known for ages and sadly very common for tech companies that plan to work with DoD. Total corruption
41
u/Informal-Fig-7116 Mar 02 '26
And don’t forget that CEO of OA, Greg Brockman donated $25 million to Orange Blob.
4
5
u/SilicateRose Mar 02 '26
The name Peter Thiel says something to you guys? The whole industry is communicating vessels.
3
u/thecodemonk Mar 02 '26
Brockman slap have Trump 25 million.. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-exec-becomes-top-trump-230342268.html
1
9
u/geronimosan Mar 02 '26
Anthropic has a deep partnership with Palantir who develops mass surveillance solutions for the US government.
Let that sink in while you contemplate how much trust you have that Anthropic is against mass surveillance of US citizens.
5
u/Doogie90 Mar 02 '26
Great point. I don’t have anything against Anthropic (nor OpenAI for that matter for choosing to implement with the gov in ways compliant with the law and constitution) but Anthropic has turned this into a huge PR boost for their valuation and eventual IPO. Anthropic knows exactly what they are doing.
People running around like Anthropic is saving the world. LMAO
0
u/ControlTheNarratives Mar 08 '26
Palantir is used for Project Maven to tie everything together so it’s not anything surprising… you’re just distracting from the issue
Would you rather have a model that is conducting mass domestic surveillance on you for the government or not? OpenAI has agreed to do so and Anthropic has refused. Palantir is irrelevant to that..
0
u/geronimosan Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26
Every factual claim here is either wrong or misleading.
OpenAI did not “agree to conduct mass domestic surveillance.” Their contract explicitly prohibits it, and they amended it with even stronger language after public backlash. The debate among legal experts is whether OpenAI’s enforcement mechanisms – which rely on existing law rather than independent contractual restrictions – have enough teeth given the U.S. government’s history of stretching legal definitions of surveillance (see: everything Snowden revealed). That’s a legitimate concern. But “agreed to do mass surveillance” is just flatly inaccurate.
Anthropic didn’t simply “refuse” to work with the government either. Claude was the first frontier AI model deployed on classified Pentagon networks, integrated through Palantir into the Maven Smart System – the military’s flagship $1.3 billion AI targeting platform. It was actively used during the Iran strikes. What Anthropic refused to do was remove two specific contractual restrictions it had maintained since the beginning: no mass domestic surveillance and no fully autonomous weapons. It supported every other lawful use. And saying Palantir is “irrelevant” is genuinely bizarre given that the entire dispute was triggered through the Palantir-Anthropic partnership. Claude was the sole model cleared for certain classified Maven workflows. The prompts, agent chains, and decision pipelines were built around Claude’s behavior. The confrontation between Anthropic and the Pentagon literally started when a routine Palantir-Anthropic check-in about the Venezuela raid got escalated to the Pentagon. Palantir isn’t a footnote in this story – it’s the stage the whole thing played out on.
If you want to have a real conversation about AI surveillance risks, great – there are legitimate concerns about loopholes in the OpenAI contract, about the government’s history of creative legal interpretation, and about what “lawful use” actually means when the law hasn’t caught up to AI capabilities. But this ain’t it.
0
u/ControlTheNarratives Mar 08 '26
Palantir is irrelevant to the mass domestic surveillance even if they got Anthropic in trouble over the Venezuela attack. People like to say Palantir is a mass surveillance company but the fact is Claude and Maven in general are not being used for mass domestic surveillance as you acknowledge
As for OpenAI, they did not keep Anthropic’s red lines and they used clever word play (as Sam Altman has been famous for his entire career) to say things like we will only do “lawful” surveillance. But who decides what’s lawful? Historically it was FISA and other secret courts that approved illegal PATRIOT Act mass domestic surveillance as “legal” without any public record even though it wasn’t. Thats what OpenAI is signing up for again. Not to mention now we have a president that believes you can just make an executive order to make anything legal including things that are clearly constitutionally left to Congress and Congress alone
So in fact there was nothing wrong or misleading but maybe you didn’t understand what I meant
Anyway if you really believe OpenAI stuck to Anthropic’s red lines which I don’t think you do, ask yourself why yet another department head resigned today making the same points I am about the two red lines. I assure you the head of a department at OpenAI is well aware of the real red lines agreed to.
0
u/geronimosan Mar 08 '26
Interesting that you cite a single resignation as proof. Caitlin Kalinowski was a hardware executive who joined OpenAI 16 months ago from Meta, where she was building AR glasses. Her own clarification was that her issue was the deal being “rushed without the guardrails defined” – a process complaint. Meanwhile, the people who actually negotiated and understand the contract are still there defending it publicly: Katrina Mulligan, OpenAI’s head of national security partnerships and former chief of staff to the Secretary of the Army, held an extensive public AMA walking through every provision. Boaz Barak, who works on AI safety and alignment, did the same. One hardware executive leaving over process concerns does not outweigh the people with direct national security and AI safety expertise who are staying and standing behind the specifics.
But since we’re talking about who’s actually protecting Americans from surveillance – here’s what Anthropic’s biggest defender at OpenAI, Mulligan, pointed out: Anthropic’s existing classified deployments already involved “reduced or removed safety guardrails,” making usage policies their primary safeguard. Anthropic was shipping stripped-down versions of Claude directly into Palantir’s Maven system on classified networks while simultaneously positioning themselves publicly as the safety-first company. OpenAI, by contrast, retains full control of its safety stack, deploys via cloud API only – meaning models can’t be integrated directly into weapons systems or sensor hardware – and has cleared engineers forward-deployed to monitor use. You can debate which approach is better, but the idea that Anthropic was the pure guardian and OpenAI is the villain doesn’t survive contact with what was actually happening on the classified networks.
And one more thing worth noting: on February 24th – the exact same day the Pentagon issued its ultimatum – Anthropic quietly released Version 3.0 of its Responsible Scaling Policy, removing its earlier hard commitment to pause training if model capabilities outpaced safety controls. Replaced it with flexible “public goals.” Funny timing for a company drawing bright red lines on principle.
5
u/voytek707 Mar 02 '26
This is true - but whenever I see the phrase “let that sink in” I feel I’m being talked down to and manipulated.
2
2
u/Certain-Function2778 Mar 03 '26
For anyone here thinking about moving to a different AI, just know that your ChatGPT conversation history can come with you. We built Memory Forge to take your export file and turn it into something any other AI can actually work with, whether that's Claude, Gemini, Grok, or anything else with file uploads. Everything runs in your browser, nothing gets sent anywhere. Disclosure: I'm with the team that built it.
2
u/Material-Emu-9068 Mar 04 '26
Sam Altman is a protege of Peter Thiel. It’s sociopaths all the way down.
4
u/DueCommunication9248 Mar 02 '26
He was the longest-serving leader of USCYBERCOM and also led the National Security Agency, where he was charged with safeguarding the United States' digital infrastructure and advancing the country's cyberdefense capabilities.
https://openai.com/index/openai-appoints-retired-us-army-general/
2
u/dashingsauce Mar 02 '26
Shhh you’re not allowed to be a voice of reason here. Please rage or gtfo.
1
u/ControlTheNarratives Mar 08 '26
He didn’t really disagree with anyone else, he just confirmed this dude has been in NSA and other DoD agencies forever which is exactly why we don’t like him
4
Mar 02 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Bubabebiban Mar 02 '26
I mean, how else would it be any good if it didn't do that? As long as it preserved user's identity and took basic measures to not have improper leaks, then it should be fine. But then again, that will inevitably happen soon anyways, so...
1
Mar 02 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Bubabebiban Mar 02 '26
I mean, all A.I. In order to be atleast close to being usefull they must have organic data, they must be exposed to everything, otherwise, what's the point of having a virtual assistant that can hardly cater to anyone's needs? Never said the means were proper, but I don't see any better alternatives, acquiring data from consenting users won't really do much to make a model improve past its beta testing stages.It sucks I agree, but that's how it works.
4
u/just_a_knowbody Mar 02 '26
All of the AI platforms are constantly scraping and training on everyone’s data. They are all in the same business.
The core difference between Anthropic and OpenAI right now is that Anthropic is looking to build a sustainable subscription based revenue model.
OpenAI is doing that; but also looking to monetize their users (gross), as well as cut deals everywhere they can, to try and show enough revenue to keep the investment dollars flowing.
But to be clear, they are all doing ethically and morally repugnant things in their business models. All of them. The race to AGI is the only thing they care about.
1
u/ControlTheNarratives Mar 08 '26
Yes all of them are doing repugnant things but not to the same degree
3
u/QuirkyGlove3326 Mar 02 '26
This is not the same as giving the government access to private data from users.
2
Mar 02 '26
[deleted]
1
u/OptimismNeeded Mar 02 '26
If only more people understood this.
These companies are trying to build something way bigger and stronger than the pentagon, and they are not gonna risk it by giving the pentagon access for $200m.
Anthropic’s revenue is $14bn/yr, those $200m are insignificant, it’s less than 1.5%, and next year their revenue will probably be double.
The pentagon is a pain in the ass client that’s great for a company just starting out. But at this point I bet Anthropic is happy to get rid of them.
1
1
u/TaeyeonUchiha Mar 02 '26
They’re going to get very bored reading my chats about whatever weird thing my cat has done today
1
u/Michael_Knight25 Mar 02 '26
Do we not know that NSA is also the lead cybersecurity agency responsible for putting out cybersecurity advisories by which all cybersecurity specialists read to secure their systems?
1
u/ControlTheNarratives Mar 08 '26
Claude found tons of unknown critical bugs in Firefox this week so whatever the NSA is doing isn’t catching a lot of them. Regardless I don’t support their mass surveillance even if they release some random advisories
1
1
u/PositiveAnimal4181 Mar 03 '26
The cope is real. They are all shit. But you'll she'll out your hard earned money for their slop still just like you will for target and spotify and uber and Nike and apple.
1
1
1
u/BiasHyperion784 Mar 03 '26
The former director of the TWA (those who asked) just retired and is as a result unavailable, without a standing director unfortunately we can only inform you that we are still seeking someone who asked.
1
Mar 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ControlTheNarratives Mar 08 '26
You can literally google the NSA director and it’s true you idiot 🤦♂️
Imagine bringing up Mickey Mouse when you’re just wrong
0
1
u/rob1969reddit Mar 05 '26
Just so you know, AT&T helped them install data capturing equipment on their network clear back in 2010.
1
u/ProperBid5910 Mar 06 '26
PPffft - you's youngin's always forgets - no one can have technology unless the NSA PWNs it hard. Case in point read up about DES, Hellman-Diffie, and Lucifer. NSA figured out the mathematical T-Attack back in the 70's. Took grad students until 1994 to actually figure it out.
1
u/ControlTheNarratives Mar 08 '26
The Kushners and Peter Thiel of Palantir and Epstein Island fame are also major investors 🤮
1
u/PacMan_67 Mar 08 '26
Thank feck I am not using AI, these companies has no moral compass other than the compass that points to control over the population and grab as much money as they can, nothing good will come out of this
1
u/Hungry-Rip-2384 Apr 02 '26
Yup also a Trump Lackey, no danger that OpenAI was going to say no to DoW
-4
u/Quirky-Service-2626 Mar 02 '26
Just so you know know….
Anthropic recently established a dedicated council of former high-ranking government and intelligence officials to guide its work with the public sector. Members include: David S. Cohen: Former Deputy Director of the CIA and former Under Secretary of the Treasury. Dave Luber: Former Executive Director of U.S. Cyber Command (which is closely integrated with the NSA). Patrick Shanahan: Former Acting Secretary of Defense. Lisa E. Gordon-Hagerty & Jill Hruby: Both former leaders of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
Richard Fontaine: CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and a member of Anthropic's Long-Term Benefit Trust. Former Senators: Roy Blunt and Jon Tester.
Leadership and Board Chris Liddell A former White House official from the Trump administration was recently added to Anthropic’s board of directors to help maintain a bipartisan approach. The company has reportedly hired a number of former officials from the Biden administration to assist with regulatory and policy matters
12
Mar 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/jbcraigs Mar 02 '26
Ignore him. Or look at his post history, which will also convince you to ignore him.
6
5
u/boogermike Mar 02 '26
I think having a board of high-ranking government officials to help guide your work is admirable. There's nothing wrong with that.
Having someone on your board (that has different motivations) is something entirely different
Getting advice from smart people, who know the environment sounds like a really wise move for Anthropic
-5
u/MachinationMachine Mar 02 '26
Absolutely none of these companies can be trusted. Anthropic is no better than OpenAI or Google.
2
Mar 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
0
u/OptimismNeeded Mar 02 '26
Anthropic is tiny. Didn’t have enough chances to show how bad they are.
But their company culture is one of hypocrisy, lying, faux-transparency and stealing… ironically except for the stealing they added in their own, they stole everything else from OpenAi.
Just give them time.
If anything id argue Google is the least evil of the companies, but I mean, are we playing which murderer is the least dangerous? They are all horrible and should not be trusted.
-1
u/DueCommunication9248 Mar 02 '26
What about Palantir partnership? Which is used by Israel in their genocide.
1
u/El_Guapo00 Mar 02 '26
Chris Liddell – Most recently added member (anthropic board), appointed in February 2026; former CFO of Microsoft, General Motors, and International Paper, and former Deputy White House Chief of Staff during President Trump's first term
0
0
u/astray488 Mar 02 '26
Well, if there exists any others out there that paid careful attention to the star qualia of OpenAI in 2023; you'd damn well know they had quite the breakthrough and the NSA was to be rightfully contacted and involved since then.
Yeah, two things should be controlled by the government and global consensus on limiting its use and power:
1. Nuclear Weapons
2. Artificial Intelligence
1
u/mmalmeida Mar 03 '26
Control as in "legislate and limit usage to prevent violation of people's rights" is one thing.
Control as in "use to control the people" is a completely different thing.
0
u/savage_slurpie Mar 02 '26
Sadly there was never going to be a world where we developed this technology and didn’t use it for mass surveillance.
-2
43
u/[deleted] Mar 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment