this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
500 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

81933 readers
2909 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hacker News.

The Department of War has stated they will only contract with AI companies who accede to “any lawful use” and remove safeguards in the cases mentioned above. They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security.

Regardless, these threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.

It is the Department’s prerogative to select contractors most aligned with their vision. But given the substantial value that Anthropic’s technology provides to our armed forces, we hope they reconsider. Our strong preference is to continue to serve the Department and our warfighters—with our two requested safeguards in place. Should the Department choose to offboard Anthropic, we will work to enable a smooth transition to another provider, avoiding any disruption to ongoing military planning, operations, or other critical missions. Our models will be available on the expansive terms we have proposed for as long as required.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 20 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Did we read the same thing?

We support the use of AI for lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence missions. But using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values.

So they accept surveillance in other countries? What about other countries’ democratic values?

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.

So you don’t because it still sucks? But if it didn’t, you would?

And what about legal?

  • Do Not Develop or Design Weapons???
  • Do Not Compromise Privacy or Identity Rights???

I’ve really lost my faith in the US. They think they hold the power, but they’re missing the point: real power is built on trust-and we’re losing more of it every day.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Its been an american leadership view for as long as ive been alive that American lives are worth at least a hundred times more than other lives.

That is, in war situations, not in situations where leadership takes care of its citizens. No, there those lives are worth next to nothing. So American leadership is pretty much at war both with its own people and countries who dont want American culture.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 hours ago

I’ve really lost my faith in the US.

What little I had left was destroyed in November of 2024.

I was hoping they had learned from their previous mistake, but instead they doubled down.

[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

What about other countries’ democratic values?

So, gentlemen should not read other gentlemens mail?

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 35 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

So the government wants "full self-driving" attack drones. You know, just in case the military actually disobeys an unlawful order?

How many pieces of science fiction do we have where the "bad guys" are literally just killer robots we created and then realized we didn't have control over? Why would we decide it is a good idea to literally build terminators? I'm convinced the government will actually build the "orphan crushing machine" next...

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 16 points 13 hours ago

Because we literally are allowing the pedofile parasite class to rule over us

[–] BC_viper@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago

And I see the big baby in chief has answered in typical baby fashion.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

HN thread broke all this down and pointed out the PR wiggle room.

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

They'll cave. These companies always do

[–] XLE@piefed.social 61 points 20 hours ago (3 children)
[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It’s probably more they don’t wanna get blamed if AI launches missiles because the idiots in charge pressed shift+tab and yolo’d.

Claude: “You’re right. I completely committed a war crime. I’m so very sorry! How would you like to proceed?”

[–] XLE@piefed.social 3 points 11 hours ago

Why not both? I'm pretty sure Trump wanted to hold them legally responsible for whatever their system did too

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 12 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Those two safeguards they deny to remove must be quite the thing.

[–] mondomon@lemmy.world 14 points 16 hours ago

I was listening to NPR yesterday and heard the two are apparently mass surveillance of Americans and autonomous weapons systems with no human interaction..

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 14 points 17 hours ago

Or they are just doing this for optics, with an understanding that the feds will end up forcing their hand in the future.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 16 points 17 hours ago

"... Without a subscription. For the full, unlocked dictatorship just the low low price of a bajillion dollars a month will give you the power you need to defeat your enemies."

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 14 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I read somewhere that Anthropic has $18,000,000,000 in commitments from last year alone, so conceivably, they can stand to lose a mere $200,000,000 and it won't create a huge issue for them in the short term.

I hope that's how they're looking at it.

[–] TheSeveralJourneysOfReemus@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I read somewhere that Anthropic has $18,000,000,000 in commitments from last year alone, so conceivably, they can stand to lose a mere $200,000,000 and it won’t create a huge issue for them in the short term.

How does one count that amount of anything, let alone money

[–] el_abuelo@programming.dev 1 points 3 hours ago

Start at 1 and work your way up in increments of 1.

See you in about 100 years give or take a few decades.

[–] melfie@lemy.lol 15 points 17 hours ago

cannot in good conscience

🤣

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 50 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Amodei "we cannot in good conscience allow this".

Hegseth looks confused, turns towards his team and mouths "...in good what?""

[–] XLE@piefed.social 11 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

"Anthropic publicly praised President Trump’s AI Action Plan," said CEO Dario Amodei.

"We have been supportive of the President’s efforts to expand energy provision in the US in order to win the AI race," he continued, apparently talking about Trump's new anti green energy, pro fossil fuel program.

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

yes... mine was just a play on the title of this post.

Look, I'm not saying that Amodei is a saint and I do find him as full of shit as Altman with their AGI promises, but would you expect Anthropic to take a stand against increasing AI investment, because it's coming from Trump? And I don't like that he went looking for funding in the Middle East either.

I just think there is an ethical line between "I do business with people who do bad things" and "I'm actively helping people who do bad things to do them in a more efficient way". It might be a fine line and it might also be that they are just posturing, but it's still more than other companies did (companies that are a lot richer than Anthropic and that don't need to find a lot of funding just to stay afloat).

[–] XLE@piefed.social 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

My reply was a continuation of your joke, just using Dario's actual words. My point is that he too lacks a conscience (see also, the other links I've posted)

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago

Gotcha! Shit, I barely understand my own jokes... 😅

[–] revolutionaryvole@lemmy.world 113 points 1 day ago (6 children)

I guess it's good that they draw the line somewhere, but it is absolutely horrifying to me as a non-American that the moral stance is limited to:

  • taking issue with fully autonomous AI weapons (purely for technical reasons according to this letter, they are working hard on making them possible)
  • refusing to conduct mass surveillance of US citizens specifically (foreign nationals are fair game and the intelligence apparatus will surely only be used for good and to preserve democracy).

This is not Anthropic refusing to cooperate with the Trump administration as the title may suggest, they are in fact explicitly eager to serve the US Department of War. They are just vying for slightly better contract terms.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

vying for slightly better contract terms

Do you mean that all this about principles is a smoke screen and Anthropic are just using it as a front to squeeze for more money?

[–] revolutionaryvole@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

No, if you want my opinion it seems too risky of a move to make all of this so public if all they want is more money. It's possible, but I'd be surprised.

I believe them when they say that what they want is to have those two particular things, fully autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of US citizens, removed from the contract terms (for now). This could be out of genuine moral principles, or out of fear of bad PR when this would be found out. Most likely a combination of both.

My point was that from my perspective it is a very minor difference. The conclusion I kept after reading this isn't "good guy Anthropic bravely stands against pressure from Hegseth" as some of the Hackernews comments try to paint it. It is "Anthropic mostly bends over backwards and grovels for Pentagon money, willing to massively spy on all foreign nationals and working on creating autonomous weapons - other US AI companies likely to be even worse".

As I said, horrifying.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You're spot-on. As some additional context, Anthropic is already working tightly with the US government. Until the recent announcement regarding Grok, Anthropic was the only approved AI for US government work, as it is/was the only one certified for safely woeking with classified data.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

And now they're the only one banned from it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] totally_human_emdash_user@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Department of ~~War~~ Defense

[–] slag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 hours ago

Department of War Crimes

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

Fascinating to suggest that it is bold or defiant to affirm that the most destructive, imperialist war machine on the planet is in fact for "defence." "Department of War" is much more honest, and I'm not a fan of how criticisms like this are oriented toward maintaining the purported morality of what is fundamentally a genocidal, globally oppressive institution.

Truly a bot comment.

[–] totally_human_emdash_user@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Be that as it may, its name is the Department of Defense, and Trump does not have the legal authority to change that name. Calling it the Department of War, like calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, is a form of giving in to the administration. That is what I am objecting to.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Who fucking cares? Genuinely. Who the absolute fuck cares if he changes the name of a genocidal monstrosity of an organization? On top of that, why the fuck should anyone respect the US legal authority at all? "Gulf of America" is a problem but not "The Grand Canyon" or "Mount Rushmore?" I wonder why you'd draw that line specifically.

You are mad that the empire doesn't match the aesthetics of some purported morality, it's spineless. It has always been evil, if "Gulf of America" or "Department of War" is the only point where you even consider the misuse of this "authority," you've been dangerously ignorant until now.

[–] totally_human_emdash_user@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I am a simple man: I see a fascist attempt to impose his will on the rest of us, I oppose it.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Only Congress can create, rename, or eliminate departments. No matter what big baby says.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

I cannot express in words strongly enough just how little respect I have for who has the right to make what decisions in a wholly genocidal and imperialistic system. You think the legality is the problem, grow the fuck up. Do you know the indigenous name for the land you live on? Ask yourself why you would only notice the legitimacy of the US once its legal system is subverted and not when it fucking commits genocide to survive.

In fact, for this reason DOGE was not a brand new department but the result of Trump taking over the United States Digital Service, hollowing it out, and turning the shell into the United States DOGE Service. This was a tragedy because the USDS was doing genuinely useful work by bringing in people from the industry to use their experience to improve the incredibly crappy government digital services that exist. I was fortunate enough to see a talk by one of the founding people of the USDS (before it had official existence), and it was inspiring hearing how much of a difference he was able to make and how it made a real impact on the lives of veterans who were dependent on the service that was collapsing.

Additionally, this was also a tragedy because other departments had essentially been gradually coaxed into granting the USDS access to their data so that USDS could make improvements to their systems, which DOGE immediately took advantage of to get direct access to all of this data after it took over the USDS.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 8 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Are those the same AI systems that recommended nuclear escalation in 90% of simulations?

[–] Hupf@feddit.org 4 points 14 hours ago

How about a nice game of chess?

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

So now you get it

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I can't see the name "anthropic" without thinking about furries.

Anthro pic.

Now you can't either. You're welcome.

[–] crimsonpoodle@pawb.social 5 points 13 hours ago

One is fun and happy the other is saddening and seemingly inescapable.

[–] chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

In other words, they did the calculations and found that they don't yet have the market share or the financial position that would enable them to sell out to the government. However, they're planning to get there someday and hope the DoD is willing to work together in the future.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That's not the vibe the company has been giving so far. Their staff is way more philosopher heavy than MBA heavy. I am planning on their morality being flushed away if/when an IPO happens, because shareholder supremacy cancels out anything else. But so far, they've been an interesting case.

[–] chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 hours ago

Anthropic has raised $30B in equity and is pledging $50B constructing data centers (all debt; they have only $2.5B in revolving credit facility).

There will be an IPO sooner rather than later.

The only question then is: will Anthropic be the first tech company ever to withstand the government? The answer is no. Everything you do with Anthropic's services will become the government's data trove someday, guaranteed.

load more comments
view more: next ›