2026-03-01 00:02:54

The Pentagon and Anthropic are in a dispute, with CEO Dario Amodei emphasizing that he will not back down. The Pentagon has signed a new agreement with OpenAI that accepts similar restrictions. Who do you think is right in this situation?

Personally, I think Dario is in the wrong. Someone who sells steel demanding that blacksmiths can't use steel to make knives… and then knife sellers not allowing butchers to use knives because they might be violent and kill people. Everything should be continuously improved through regulation, not a one-size-fits-all approach. After nuclear energy was discovered, did we stop making atomic bombs? As long as there are limited rules, it’s manageable. During his recent meeting, Dario openly took a moral high ground, acting as if he’s above it all. But as a rational person, shouldn’t he clarify some special cases first? For example, monitoring people might not be allowed, but adjustments can be made for extreme situations. He’s not suitable to be a CEO, more fitting as a Chief Technology Officer. A CEO needs to balance various interests and resources, and making decisions like this can directly harm a company. AI legislation will definitely come later; the growth of AI is even more dangerous than nuclear bombs.

I’m not defending the Department of Defense or Ultraman—everyone should do what they’re supposed to do. The Department of Defense certainly isn’t using AI to chat. As long as Ultraman is rational, they will negotiate rules rather than going for a one-size-fits-all approach and acting aggressively.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

6 Likes

Reward
6
12
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CryptoSelf

· 15h ago

What do you think? After being blacklisted, has Dario's position weakened, or has he become stronger and more respected in the industry and in the public eye?

View OriginalReply0

CryptoSelf

· 15h ago

What’s the result? Dario didn’t back down, the contract was canceled, and the company was labeled as a “supply chain risk.” Trump even directly ordered federal agencies to “immediately cease using Anthropic’s services.” However, Anthropic has announced that it will challenge this unprecedented blacklist decision in court. Many members of Congress and observers have publicly criticized it as “an unprecedented bullying and political suppression of American tech companies.” I believe Dario is not only correct but also demonstrated rare courage and consistency. The CEO’s job has never been just about chasing short-term profits; sometimes it’s about safeguarding the company’s soul and independence. If they had just nodded and said “yes” to everything, Anthropic would have long lost its purpose of existence — it would just become another soulless copy of OpenAI.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoSelf

· 15h ago

OpenAI's acceptance of similar restrictions while signing an agreement is also quite interesting: Sam Altman publicly said "We have technical safeguards," but in reality, it amounts to making substantial concessions to the Pentagon's requirement of "any legal use." This perfectly highlights the difference between the two companies: one is more pragmatic and business-oriented; the other is more principled and long-term risk-focused. Dario openly stated "We cannot accept this in good conscience," which is not showmanship but a true bottom line. If you truly believe AI is more dangerous than nuclear weapons (I completely agree), then you should especially support private companies maintaining certain red lines. If the government can arbitrarily label everything as "national security" to endlessly demand and forcibly lift restrictions, then the so-called "future regulation" will become a complete empty talk—heading straight toward a dystopian society of surveillance and an out-of-control arms race.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoSelf

· 15h ago

You say Dario “moral high ground, pretends to be noble,” but in fact this has been his and Anthropic’s consistent stance since the founding: the company’s fundamental philosophy is “responsible AI,” and these red lines are embedded in the company DNA. As CEO, his responsibilities are not only to make short-term profits but also to safeguard the company's long-term values and brand reputation. If he were to abandon these principles just for a Pentagon contract, the company would instead collapse—because investors, employees, and business clients (especially enterprise clients) choose Anthropic precisely because of trust and ethics.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoSelf

· 15h ago

Your analogy of steel and knives is very creative, but not entirely accurate: here, the company isn't saying "I sell steel, but don't make nuclear bombs"; rather, it's saying "You can use it to make weapons, but don't use it to make nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles, or fully autonomous drones for mass slaughter." Especially regarding mass surveillance, this is targeted at American citizens on home soil — which has already gone beyond national defense and is directly sliding into the abyss of authoritarian control.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoSelf

· 15h ago

No, I believe Dario Amodei is completely correct here. The Pentagon's requirement for "any lawful use" essentially means that Anthropic must remove two of the most core red lines: banning large-scale surveillance of American citizens and prohibiting fully autonomous lethal weapon systems. These are not just "extreme special cases," but fundamental issues that directly threaten democratic values and could lead to irreversible consequences.

View OriginalReply0

Meteor66666