Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

Post by txrx0000 » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:31 AM UTC

TOMDM wrote: post #499

txrx0000 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have strong signal that Dario, Jared, and Sam would genuinely burn at the stake before acceding to something that's a) against their values, and b) they think is a net negative in the long term. (Many others, too, they're just well-known.) I very much doubt it judging by their actions, but let's assume that's cognitive dissonance and engage for a minute. What are those values that you're defending? Which one of t…

Anthropic doesn't get to make that call though, if they tried the result would actually be: 8 AIs running on 8 machines each with 10 million GPUs AND 2 million AIs running on 2 million machines, each with 10 GPU's If every lab joined them, we can get to a distributed scenario, but it's a coordination problem where if you take a principled stance without actually forcing the coordination you end up in the worst of bot…

Post by lebovic » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:34 AM UTC

txrx0000 wrote: post #435

lebovic wrote: post #202

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about the RSP update [1]. It's enheartening to see that leaders at Anthropic are willing to risk losing their seat at the table to be guided by values. Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are, even if the company is pragmatic about achieving their goals. I have strong signal th…

> I have strong signal that Dario, Jared, and Sam would genuinely burn at the stake before acceding to something that's a) against their values, and b) they think is a net negative in the long term. (Many others, too, they're just well-known.) I very much doubt it judging by their actions, but let's assume that's cognitive dissonance and engage for a minute. What are those values that you're defending? Which one of t…

Post by noelsusman » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:39 AM UTC

RyanShook wrote: post #378

nkoren wrote: post #57

This makes me a very happy Claude Max subscriber. Finally, someone of consequence not kissing the ring. I hope this gives others courage to do the same.

The whole article reads as virtue signaling to me. Anthropic already has large defense contracts. Their models are already being used by the military. There's really no statement here.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:42 AM UTC

jwlarocque wrote: post #517

lebovic wrote: post #202

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about the RSP update [1]. It's enheartening to see that leaders at Anthropic are willing to risk losing their seat at the table to be guided by values. Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are, even if the company is pragmatic about achieving their goals. I have strong signal th…

Oh hey Noah Glad to hear you say some moral convictions are held at one of the big labs (even if, as you say, this doesn't guarantee good outcomes).

Post by QuiEgo » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:45 AM UTC

stevenpetryk wrote: post #515

QuiEgo wrote: post #480

I'd be amused beyond all reason if we saw this chain of events: - Anthropic says "no" - DoD says "ok you're a supply chain risk" (meaning many companies with gov't contracts can no longer use them) - A bunch of tech companies say "you know what? We think we'd lose more money from falling behind on AI than we'd lose from not having your contracts." Bonus points if its some of the hyperscalers like AWS. Hilarity ensues…

Being labeled a supply chain risk means that companies with government contracts cannot use Anthropic products _for those government contracts_, not that they have to cease all usage of Anthropic products. Reporters seem to be reporting on this incorrectly.