[GorbachevyChase]

I am suspicious the whole thing is a PR stunt to build public trust.

[georgefrowny]

In none of their statements do they say they won't do the things:

> we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.

That's very specifically worded to not say "under no circumstances will we do this".

> Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now

Is not saying they won't eventually be included.

They've left themselves a backtrack, and with the care there this statement has been crafted, that's surely deliberate.

[reactordev]

This. This is a public misdirection. They already signed a new deal. It may be to their disliking but nothing in the statement prevents them from moving forward.

[hdb2]

> They've left themselves a backtrack, and with the care there this statement has been crafted, that's surely deliberate.

What's worse, someone in their PR department will read this thread and be disappointed that the spin didn't work.

[brookst]

I mean that’s just adulthood.

There are outcomes where the US government seizes the company. Not super likely, not impossible.

It would be naive to write a statement that a future event will never happen, under any circumstances. People who make that mistake get lambasted for hypocrisy when unforeseen circumstances arise.

I see recognition that making absolute statements about the future is best left to zealots and prophets. Which to me speaks of maturity, not duplicity.

[darkwater]

This. I don't get why you are getting downvoted. The statement literally says:

  Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now:

Last word is very important: "now".

[absoluteunit1]

I share this sentiment.

In general - I don’t know if it’s a coincidence but here on HN for example, I’ve noticed an increasing amount of comments and posts emphasizing the narrative of how “well- intended” Anthropic is.

[ternwer]

Feel free to judge them by their actions rather than intentions. This situation being an example.

[Beestie]

I'd love to see the financial model that offsets losing your single biggest customer and substantial chunk of your annual revenue with some vague notion of public trust.

[mingus88]

This is so short sighted. We are so early into this AI revolution, and this administration is obviously in a tailspin, with the only folk left in charge being the least capable ones we have seen in a decade

Imagine what the conversation would be like if Mattis, a highly decorated and respected leader were still the SecDef. Instead we are seeing bully tactics from a failed cable news pundit who has neither earned nor deserved any respect from the military he represents.

We are two elections and a major health issue away from a complete change of course.

But short sightedness is the name of the quarterly reporting game, so who knows.

[GorbachevyChase]

Their whole strategy is that the lack of a legal moat protecting their product is an existential threat to human life. They are the only moral AI and their competitors must be sanctioned and outlawed. At which point they can transition from AI as commodity to “value” based pricing.

It’s not going to work, but I can’t blame Amodei and friends for trying to make themselves trillionaires.

[wartywhoa23]

I'd love to see any evidence that this single biggest customer is provably and irreversibly lost on all levels of scrutiny as a result of this attempt at building public trust.

[Matticus_Rex]

$200M is >2% ARR at the last numbers we got from them, and would take them back... checks notes... literally only a few days of ARR growth.

[tdeck]

This is why we should be skeptical of companies that want to tie themselves to the military industrial complex in the first place.

[jrs235]

The rest of the world moves to using you?

[HardCodedBias]

It absolutely is a PR stunt. And the media is cheering.

It's absurd.

It's simple: If you do not like working with the military, cancel your contract with the military and pay the penalties.

They are explicitly not doing that.

[ternwer]

This effectively is cancelling, isn't it?

You're implying cancelling quietly would be better. But the department would just use a different supplier. This seems like the action someone would take if they cared about the issue.

[FabHK]

> If you do not like working with the military, ...

Eh? But they do like to work with the military. How else are you going to "defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries"?

They want to work with the military, with just two additional guardrails.