>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.
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.
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.
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
Their red lines are still in place. They are the only AI company with those red lines.
[1] https://www.obsolete.pub/p/exclusive-anthropic-is-quietly-ba... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/25/tech/anthropic-safety-pol... [3] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-dials-back-ai-safety-c...
Some redlines are still in place. Not the same ones and it is very clear based on this precedent than 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.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/01/pentagon-anthropic-blacklist...
[1] https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/anthropic-...