upvote
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.

reply
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?
reply
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.

reply
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.
reply
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.

reply
"ethical" is not a word that carries the connotation of a universally agreed upon set of behaviors. Different peoples, groups, and cultures vary in what they consider acceptable behavior.
reply
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

reply
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.

reply
reply
Those sources don’t claim Anthropic is crossing its red lines (AI-controlled weapons and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).
reply
You didn't read your own sources. The red lines are still in place.
reply
Oh I read them. If I had to betI 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 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.

reply
100% and that was bold and set a good example, at least from the outside.
reply
...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...

[1] https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/anthropic-...

reply