DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Pentagon threatens to cancel Anthropic contract by Friday if company doesn’t lift safeguards

The Pentagon has threatened to cancel Anthropic’s contract by Friday if the company does not agree to the department’s terms for the use of its AI model, sources confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth met with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei on Tuesday at the Pentagon amid a dispute over the AI firm’s usage policy, which bars its model Claude from being used for mass surveillance or to develop weapons that can be used without human oversight.

If Anthropic doesn’t agree to the Pentagon’s terms, the department warned it would use the Defense Production Act against the company or designate it as a supply chain risk, a senior Pentagon official told The Hill. Axios first reported the Friday deadline.

“During the conversation, Dario expressed appreciation for the Department’s work and thanked the Secretary for his service,” an Anthropic spokesperson told The Hill in a statement on Tuesday.

“We continued good-faith conversations about our usage policy to ensure Anthropic can continue to support the government’s national security mission in line with what our models can reliably and responsibly do,” the spokesperson added.

The Pentagon official insisted that tactical operation cannot be led by exception and the legality of the missions are the department’s responsibility as the end user.

“The Pentagon has only given out lawful orders,” the official said.

The relationship between Anthropic and the Pentagon has become increasingly rocky in recent weeks, putting at risk the $200 million contract the company signed with the Defense Department last summer.

Google, OpenAI and xAI also struck similar contracts and have since been added to the department’s new bespoke AI platform, GenAI.mil.

However, Anthropic’s Claude has so far been the only AI model available on classified systems. The Pentagon reached a new agreement with Elon Musk’s xAI to use its AI model, Grok, on the classified side, the Pentagon official told The Hill, while Google and OpenAI are “close.”

Despite the months-long back-and-forth, Tuesday’s meeting was respectful and cordial and both sides were thoughtful and friendly with no one raising their voice, a source familiar with the meeting told The Hill.

Amodei underscored that no one operating in the field has encountered issues with the company’s two red lines, mass surveillance and lethal autonomous weapons, according to the source.

However, the Pentagon official said that “this has nothing to do with mass surveillance and autonomous weapons being used.”

Amodei also noted that Anthropic had no outreach to the department or Palantir after the Jan. 3 raid that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and that the AI startup has never objected or interfered with “legitimate” military operation, the source familiar with the meeting said.

Previously, a senior Pentagon official told The Hill that a senior Anthropic executive was talking with a senior Palantir executive and asking if Anthropic’s AI model was used during the early January operation.

The Palantir executive told the Pentagon about the interaction since he was alarmed the question was brought up in way that would signal that Anthropic could disapprove of use of its model.

The Defense Production Act, which was enacted 1950, gives the president broad authority to control domestic industries for the purpose of national defense. The law was used during the COVID-19 pandemic to boost the production of vaccines.

The Pentagon official said the department would use the Defense Production Act to compel Anthropic to have its model used however the department sees fit, regardless of whether the AI firm wants to or not.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5752960-pentagon-threatens-anthropic-contract/

So the trump administration agreed to and signed a contract with the current constraints in place. But now, mid contract they expect to change the terms and parameters of the contract or they will cancel it? They have officially adopted the trump business model.

Yes. And that's the way all contracts with the Pentagon work. It's not the Trump business model, it's the US military industrial complex business model. It's been that way for over 160 years.

So something especially set up not to spy on the American people or create a weapon out of and that was agreed to, now must change to be used for the very purposes it was agreed not to be used for? And it's been that way for 160 years?

Yep. You're catching on.

I don't think that's true. Just like I don't believe something done legally is comparable to something done illegally.

It's okay to be wrong.

Here is the direction I think you're gong to head but it's not as simple as you're making it sound............................

The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (P.L. 81-774, 50 U.S.C. §§4501 et seq.), as amended, confers upon the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. The authorities can be used across the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense.

Though initially passed in response to the Korean War, the DPA is historically based on the War Powers Acts of World War II. Gradually, Congress has expanded the term national defense, as defined in the DPA. Based on this definition, the scope of DPA authorities now extends beyond shaping U.S. military preparedness and capabilities, as the authorities may also be used to enhance and support domestic preparedness, response, and recovery from natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies.

This comes from congress.gov whose link will not post.

This wasn't passed until 1950. Not 160 years ago. The war powers act only allowed such things to be done during a time of war before 1960. Not the same thing.

And I have seen nothing to indicate this would apply to force a business to make one of their products available in such a form to be used for wide spread spying on American citizens.

Different conversation altogether.

We were talking about the ability to just cancel contracts. That was born in 1861 and SCOTUS reinforced it in a landmark case in 1875. And it IS as simple as it sounds.

So now you are comparing the ability to cancel contracts with the ability to apply pressure on businesses to transform their products and if they don't you will cancel their contracts?

This discussion was never simply about the governments ability to cancel contracts. It was about using a contract by holding it over their heads as a threat of they don't conform their products as you want them to do.

Even when the people who make the product do not believe it is a product that "can reliably and responsibly do,” what the government is asking it to do. But then those type of things have never been high on their priority list from the beginning.

They have been told what to think and what to believe so that is what they are thinking and believing... It's pretty simple.

#trolltime

I'm intelligent enough to know how government contract work, believe it or not.

Climb back in your hole, troll boy.

That's the only thing this conversation was about, until you just changed it. An ancillary argument is totally fine, but don't try to change the facts; they're all over this page and we were the only ones talking.

You're only comment from your copy/paste was about cancelling the contract.


I said that's how government contracts work.

You asked me to clarify based on the circumstances, I said "yep".

You said you didn't think so, I said you were wrong.

You changed the direction by predicting what I was thinking.

I said "nope", wasn't doing that.

Then I provided proof of what I was saying.

Now you say "that's not what we were talking about".

Either there are voices in your head, or you would like to change the direction of the conversation.

I would be all for that, as there is definitely more nuance to the conversation, definitely more scope than just "the contract".


BUT... Now it's troll time as the resident troll has awakened from his slumber... so I'll bow out. I don't have the energy for that mess anymore.

The original article posted on which this thread is based discusses the entire conditions and circumstances surrounding this "contract cancellation" is based was part of the very nature of the thread from the very beginning. Anyone with a brain fully understands that. I understand why you wish to now act like it wasn't in some hopes you're fooling someone because that part of the topic does not suit your narrative.

Thanks for playing. As a consolation prize I will send you a home version of the game.

Here is what you responded to and how you responded to it. Now you claim that was never a part of our discussion.

To stick to this point - we actually don't know what is being threatened and how this is working. If the threat is to cancel the contract at the end of the current agreed upon deal - then really there is no harm, no foul. If the threat is to cancel the contract mid-term - that would be a breach and no doubt subject to legal repercussions. But even then - we don't know all the clauses and terms of the contract. Assuming that it is automatically one or the other without detailed knowledge would be wrong.

My perspective - seeing how Trump illegally removed a sitting foreign leader. How he has illegally or highly questionably manipulated fake claims about various "crisis" to justify things like Tariffs and fatal boat strikes on alleged drug runners, including a second strike to kill a person already prevented from running drugs .... I'd say the idea we should simply accept anything and everything this administration says and does and wants to do without checks, balances and oversight is really really stoopid.

I just have a problem with our own Government being a bully.. I know it's not the first time, but I hope it's the last time. Pretty sure that under this regime, it won't be.

MAGA = PPS

One more time.

Military contracts can be cancelled at any time.

Since 1861.

And once again this is totally false.

The question isn't simply "can the government cancel a contract". The question is can the government use the cancellation of a contract to try and force the contractor to change the parameters and make them adapt their product for uses it was never intended for in the first place.

Those are not the same thing and that has been the question all along. The ability to cancel a contract and being some type of legal grounds to tell a contractor "Change your product to do what we want with it or else" are two different things. The U.S government was not intended to have the ability to use its power like the Mafia.

Yes.

Someone asked me to opine on this, so I will quickly chime in and then be on my merry way so as not to disrupt the squabbling.

By the letter of the law, FATE is technically correct. The modern day codified version of this is known as Termination For Convenience, or what we in the actual business call T4C:

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.249-2

The clause above is an example for FFP contracts. It goes wider than that, and the DFARS has its own supplemental prescriptions as well. It is all a flowdown of the past 150 years of precedent put into code.

The spirit of the law is a different story. The point behind T4C is the rapidly changing environment that often comes with Defense. For instance, if you are in a war and you have have production contracts for transport vehicles, but then the war ends, you want to be able to terminate the production of those vehicles as they are no longer needed. Same thing happens for weapons, materiel, etc. that becomes obsolete due to the changing nature of warfare and defense. That is essentially terminating because it is no longer convenient or valuable for the taxpayer to keep buying something that is no longer of value.

I have done tens of billions of dollars in defense acquisitions over the last fifteen years, and I have an unlimited warrant. Unless it pertains to a compelling regulatory or legal requirement for something like ITAR, or avoiding things like counterfeit parts manufactured by adversaries, I have never seen it where we (DoD) mandate a SOW/PRD/clause contract modification and use termination for convenience or termination for default as a stick for a contractor to accept our unilateral modification terms.

T4C is also not that simple. It is a mini-acquisition in and of itself if you read the clause language in the link above. The Government will have to negotiate what costs/profit the contractor is entitled to work and the costs/profit related to any work the Contractor still has to undergo to shut down production or performance. One of the T4C considerations is "What did we get for all the money we sunk?" that has to be a valid consideration for any contracting officer performing the termination. Depending on the complexity of the effort, T4C can take a long time. It's definitely not always a quick kill.

Carry on.

QFT

The whole thing is hilarious. Presidents and military leaders have been cancelling or changing the terms of contracts for ages. For billions and billions and billions of dollars.

Rumsfeld and Bush probably cancelled about $50 billion worth. Gates and Obama scrapped a $160 billion right out of the gate. Hell, Obama personally cancelled a $13 billion Presidential Helicopter and said it had too many gadgets.

You're whining about something that has been the absolute norm since the beginning of government contracts. Anyone that has ever signed one understands this.

What makes it even more ironic is that this one is for a mere $200 million and the "supplier" doesn't even provide a real product. And this tech has changed faster than any tech in the history of humans; it should be no surprise that the intentions for its use might change as well.

So, you're right (for a change)... downright, knee-slapping hilarious.

Thank you. Someone who has extensive experience and actually knows what they're talking about. As such you've never seen anything like this before.

While you have a lot more knowledge than I do this part of your post is what I was referring to when I mentioned The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950...........


Now that I've heard from someone who actually knows and understand this I'll ignore the uninformed noise in the room.

lmao He didn't dispute anything I said. But if that makes you feel better as a means to bow out of a conversation after you got served your lunch. So be it!

What conversation? You haven't tried to hold a conversation on here for a long time now.


That's pretty simple coming from someone that has actual experience in the field. At that point I would have thought even you could man up and admit that ends the conversation. I suppose I should have known better.

That's great. Have him tell us when the last time was that he purchased all-you-can-eat artificial-intelligence.

You want me to "man-up" to what? To you coming out the fool again? That's literally every time I talk to you. You change the conversation eight-ways to Sunday and then act like you made a point. This thread is no different.

Starts with a big hissy fit about canceling a contract, ends with cherry-picking a post from someone in the know... whose very first sentence stated that I was correct.

Carry on, little man.

Read the article the thread is based on and the topic discussion since then. The only one claiming somebody else changed the topic is the one trying to change the topic. You.

05 read the thread. 05 knew the flow and topic of the conversation. As such 05 addressed the actual topic. Try to be more like 05.

By your age I should probably refer to you as a man as well, little or otherwise. But according to your immaturity I'm not so sure you qualify anymore. You used to.

Anthropic 'cannot in good conscience accede' to Pentagon's demands, CEO says

WASHINGTON (AP) — Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said Thursday the artificial intelligence company "cannot in good conscience accede" to the Pentagon's demands to allow unrestricted use of its technology, deepening the unusually public clash with the Trump administration that is threatening to pull its contract and take other drastic steps by Friday.

The maker of the AI chatbot Claude said in a statement that it's not walking away from negotiations, but that new contract language received from the Defense Department "made virtually no progress on preventing Claude's use for mass surveillance of Americans or in fully autonomous weapons."

Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's top spokesman, said on social media Thursday that the military "has no interest in using AI to conduct mass surveillance of Americans (which is illegal) nor do we want to use AI to develop autonomous weapons that operate without human involvement."

Anthropic's policies prevent its models from being used for those purposes. It's the last of its peers — the Pentagon also has contracts with Google, OpenAI and Elon Musk's xAI — to not supply its technology to a new U.S. military internal network.

"It is the Department's prerogative to select contractors most aligned with their vision," Amodei wrote in a statement. "But given the substantial value that Anthropic's technology provides to our armed forces, we hope they reconsider."

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave Anthropic an ultimatum on Tuesday after meeting with Amodei: Open its artificial intelligence technology for unrestricted military use by Friday, or risk losing its government contract. Military officials warned that they could go even further and designate the company as a supply chain risk, or invoke a Cold War-era law called the Defense Production Act to give the military more sweeping authority to use its products.

Amodei said Thursday that "those latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security."

Parnell reiterated that the Pentagon wants to "use Anthropic's model for all lawful purposes" but didn't offer details on what that entailed. He said opening up use of the technology would prevent the company from "jeopardizing critical military operations."

"We will not let ANY company dictate the terms regarding how we make operational decisions," he said.

The talks that escalated this week began months ago. Amodei said that given "the substantial value that Anthropic's technology provides to our armed forces, we hope they reconsider." But if they don't, he said Anthropic "will work to enable a smooth transition to another provider."

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is not seeking reelection, said Thursday that the Pentagon has been handling the matter unprofessionally while Anthropic is "trying to do their best to help us from ourselves."

"Why in the hell are we having this discussion in public?" Tillis told reporters. "This is not the way you deal with a strategic vendor that has contracts."

He added, "When a company is resisting a market opportunity for fear of negative consequences, you should listen to them and then behind closed doors figure out what they're really trying to solve."

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was "deeply disturbed" by reports that the Pentagon is "working to bully a leading U.S. company."

"Unfortunately, this is further indication that the Department of Defense seeks to completely ignore AI governance," Warner said in a statement. It "further underscores the need for Congress to enact strong, binding AI governance mechanisms for national security contexts."

While Pentagon officials say they always will follow the law with their use of AI models, the department has taken steps to change the culture among the military legal ranks.

Hegseth told Fox News last February, weeks after becoming defense secretary, that "ultimately, we want lawyers who give sound constitutional advice and don't exist to attempt to be roadblocks to anything."

The same month, Hegseth also fired the top lawyers for the Army and the Air Force without explanation. The Navy's top lawyer had resigned shortly after the election in late 2024.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...nce-accede-to-pentagons-demands-ceo-says

The hypothetical nuclear attack that escalated the Pentagon’s showdown with Anthropic


A defense official said the Pentagon’s technology chief whittled the debate down to a life-and-death nuclear scenario at a meeting last month: If an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched at the United States, could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down?

It’s the kind of situation where technological might and speed could be critical to detection and counterstrike, with the time to make a decision measured in minutes and seconds. Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei’s answer rankled the Pentagon, according to the official, who characterized the CEO’s reply as: You could call us and we’d work it out.

An Anthropic spokesperson denied Amodei gave that response, calling the account “patently false,” and saying the company has agreed to allow Claude to be used for missile defense. But officials have cited this and another incident involving Claude’s use in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro as flashpoints in a spiraling standoff between the company and the Pentagon in recent days. The meeting was previously reported by Semafor.

Related video: MSU Denver professor closely watching standoff over how military can use AI (Denver7 KMGH Denver, CO)


A face-to-face meeting Tuesday between Amodei and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth escalated the situation, The Washington Post reported. The two sides are now careening toward a defining power struggle over whether the U.S. government should have the freedom to spy on or kill humans using the potent new technology, based in part on extreme hypotheticals and games of telephone.

The Pentagon has given Anthropic until 5:01 p.m. Friday to drop its objections to using Claude in relation to autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of U.S. citizens. If not, officials have said they may use government authority to force Anthropic to hand over the technology anyway — while also blacklisting the company from future defense work.

Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an X post Thursday that the department had no interest in conducting mass domestic surveillance nor deploying autonomous weapons, but wanted to use AI for “all lawful purposes.”



“This is a simple, common-sense request that will prevent Anthropic from jeopardizing critical military operations and potentially putting our warfighters at risk,” Parnell said.

Amodei said in a statement late Thursday that his company was ready to continue working with the Pentagon, but would not change its stance. Current AI systems are not reliable enough to power robotic weaponry without putting troops and civilians alike at risk, he said, and existing laws on domestic surveillance do not account for the sweeping potential of AI snooping tools.

“In a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values,” Amodei said in his first public comments on the battle. “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.”


Anthropic did not expect to end up in a fight with Pentagon leaders when it became the first major AI lab to strike a deal to work on classified U.S. military networks in late 2024. But the dispute highlights how the start-up, founded in 2021 by safety-minded refugees from ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, has struggled to deftly navigate Washington in the second Trump administration. (The Washington Post has a content partnership with OpenAI.)

Anthropic recently added a former deputy chief of staff to President Donald Trump to its board and explored taking investment from a fund led by Donald Trump Jr., according to people familiar with the pitch. Yet its leaders have also repeatedly clashed with the White House in public.

In a coruscating post on X in October, David Sacks, Trump’s top AI adviser, accused the company of “fear-mongering” and pursuing “regulatory capture” in an attempt to bend the government to its will. Anthropic leaders have criticized one of the administration’s key AI policies in recent weeks, even as the dispute with the Pentagon was brewing.

“There’s the subtext of Anthropic not being aligned with the MAGA agenda,” said Steven Feldstein, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, who researches the use of AI in war. “This is as much of a political fight as a military use issue.”

Experts say the outcome of the clash could shape the trajectory of the burgeoning relationship between the AI industry and the U.S. military, potentially signaling to other leading firms that the cost of doing business with the Pentagon could be losing control of their innovations.

Unlike a gun or a jet engine, the uses that AI might find on future battlefields keep changing. The U.S. already pushes autonomy into its weapons and AI-enabled systems are a part of almost every drone, ship or aircraft under production or envisioned in the future force. The Trump administration is embarking upon a vast expansion of the military’s use of AI.

But leading figures in the development of the technology have long had ethical and legal concerns about giving AI the power to make life-and-death decisions or turbocharging surveillance.

Emil Michael, a former Uber executive who is now undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, has taken the lead in the discussions with Anthropic. He has argued the government and not individual tech firms should have the final say in how the technology is used, according to a person familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Michael did not respond to a request for comment.

To the Pentagon that means having a policy permitting what Parnell called “all lawful purposes.” Amodei has held firm that Anthropic has red lines around autonomous weapons and surveillance, a stance that has won support from his employees and could serve as a recruiting tool for idealistic engineers as the company heads toward an expected initial public offering.

Late Thursday, Michael accused Amodei of having a “God-complex” in a post on X. “He wants nothing more than to try to personally control the US Military and is ok putting our nation’s safety at risk,” Michael wrote.

The escalating dispute has baffled people who study how the military uses AI.

Dean Ball, a former Trump administration AI adviser, said he hoped the two sides could still find a way to step back from the brink. “The solution to that problem is to cancel the contract,” Ball said. “Going on a jihad against Anthropic is whole other layer of escalation.”

Leapfrogging off Amazon
Anthropic owes its head start at the Pentagon in part to a partnership the intelligence community forged with Amazon in 2013, which paved the way for classified material to be handled in Amazon’s cloud. Over the course of the next several years, the tech giant built out secure computing infrastructure for the intelligence community, beating out rivals for coveted contracts to house classified and top secret data.

In 2023 and 2024, Amazon invested billions into Anthropic. The relationship greased the AI start-up’s path into the military’s closely guarded systems, according to a person familiar with the relationship, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe it. Amazon declined to comment. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.)

Anthropic also found an ally in software analytics firm and longtime defense contractors Palantir, which in 2024 teamed up with the AI firm and Amazon to offer Claude on its systems used by military and spy agencies. Anthropic said the partnership would boost the military’s ability to process huge amounts of data and make good decisions, saying it was proud to take on the work.

Anthropic has “first mover status and their product is good,” said another person familiar with the military’s work with AI companies, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive issues relating to national security.

Since Claude’s deployment with the Pentagon, Anthropic said Thursday, its technology has been put to use analyzing intelligence, planning operations and in cyberwarfare. The company has deepened its work with the government since Trump returned to office and pushed federal agencies to rapidly scale up their use of AI. In July it signed a $200 million contract with the Defense Department and made a deal the following month to provide its system to civilian agencies for a dollar apiece.

But the company’s advantage has eroded as competitors like Google, OpenAI and xAI make deals of their own with the Pentagon. Officials say the other leading firms have agreed to its “all lawful purposes” policy for unclassified work, and that xAI has also signed a deal for classified systems. The three companies did not respond to requests for comment.

Anthropic has differed from its rivals in simultaneously courting the administration for contracts while opposing it in other areas of policy.

When the White House was pushing an executive order that would preempt restrictive state-level AI laws this winter, Anthropic was promoting a safety-oriented AI bill in California.

Amodei has also criticized the Trump administration’s drive to allow exports of American AI chips to China. On the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last month, Amodei compared the policy to “selling nuclear weapons to North Korea.” After meeting with Amodei this month on Capitol Hill, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) said she would introduce legislation to sharply limit any exports.

Anthropic has also hired several former Biden administration officials.

“The administration just wants everyone to bend the knee and [Amodei] won’t,” said an investor who works on defense technology, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid getting into conflicts with any of the parties.

In the past year, Anthropic has made moves that could smooth its relationship with the Trump administration. The company ramped up its lobbying in Washington, spending $3.1 million and bringing on a former senior aide to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to disclosures compiled by transparency group Open Secrets. It announced this month that it was adding Chris Liddell to its board, a former tech executive who served in the first Trump White House.

The company also recently explored an investment from the Trump-allied venture capital firm 1789 Capital for funding, but was turned down, according to two people familiar with the pitch, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private business discussions. Donald Trump Jr. is a partner at the firm, alongside Chris Buskirk, an ally of Vice President JD Vance.

‘Once and for all’
Insiders in the world of defense technology argue that the current fight between the Pentagon and Anthropic appears to be more philosophical than technical, and that the administration had already soured on the AI company — even as rank-and-file military personnel were finding its services increasingly useful.

“The administration and the Republicans are looking for ways to get rid of Anthropic once and for all,” the person familiar with the military’s work with AI companies said. The Pentagon clash could provide an opportunity to carry that through. In January, Hegseth issued a directive for the military to embrace AI as though the country were at war.

The U.S. has committed to some guardrails on autonomous weaponry. France, the United Kingdom, China and the U.S. all previously said they would require a human to be involved in all decisions to deploy nuclear weapons. In a statement to The Post, the Pentagon said the Trump administration intends to maintain that pledge.

“It remains the Department’s policy that there is a human in the loop on all decisions on whether to employ nuclear weapons,” a senior defense official said. “There is no policy under consideration to put this decision in the hands of AI.”

But that still leaves room for AI to influence decisions on targets and speed of response. In a recent nuclear war game at King’s College London, many leading language models including versions of ChatGPT, Claude and Google’s Gemini all quickly favored launching warheads. That could influence a human’s decision to fire, said Paul Dean, vice president of the global nuclear program at the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative.

“It’s not simply ensuring that there’s a human being in the decision-making loop,” Dean said. “The question is, to what extent will AI impact that human decision-making?”

Neither side in this week’s faceoff knows for certain what AI’s use in war will ultimately look like, but both seem unwilling to trust in the other’s future decisions.

“The Pentagon does not trust that Anthropic will be a reliable vendor, and Anthropic worries about misuse of its technology,” said Michael C. Horowitz, a director at the University of Pennsylvania who oversaw AI weapons policy during the Biden administration.

Because Claude is already in use across the Defense Department, exiling Anthropic and switching to a rival could prove costly. Although Defense officials have suggested they could use the Defense Production Act to force the AI company to share its systems, experts are split on whether the law could be applied.

Doing so would send a chilling message to the AI firms the Pentagon hopes to lean on that they may risk of having their own innovations seized if the government sees something it wants.

That would cross a troubling line, said Katie Sweeten, a former liaison for the Justice Department to the Pentagon, and a partner at Scale LLP. “This is a literal nuclear option which I think rightfully companies should be very concerned about.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/new...on-s-showdown-with-anthropic/ar-AA1XbseI

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic's AI technology

Washington — President Trump announced Friday that he is ordering all federal agencies to "immediately" stop using Anthropic's AI technology, as the company nears a Pentagon deadline to drop its guardrails over the military's use of its AI.

"I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic's technology," Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social. "We don't need it, we don't want it, and will not do business with them again!"

The president said he will give agencies six months to phase out its use of Anthropic's products and threatened to take additional action against the company if it does not assist during that period.

"Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow," he wrote.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...CHR9qVQfYn1w4_aem_JYBIDfpPCCspx0fTgDK2fw

So now this administration calls refusing to bend your knees to them a "betrayal". That you are now duplicitous. That somehow it was Anthropic "strong arming" them. That this means they are somehow fundamentally incompatible with American principles. And somehow since they didn't kiss this administrations azz it makes them less patriotic.

Than as a parting blow they wish to destroy their business all together.............


What a bunch of scum bags this administration has turned out to be. As if some of us didn't see this type of thing coming. Kiss the ring or else.

And the MAGA fanboys will cheer and shout and wave their pom poms .... because.... they have been told to.

Meanwhile any person with an ounce of common sense would see this for what it is.