Discussion

• @theatlantic @theatlantic on x

  The deal between the Pentagon and Anthropic fractured in part over the proposed use of autonomous weapons. @andersen on the question OpenAI staff should now be asking Sam Altman about his company's new deal with the Pentagon: https://www.theatlantic.com/ ...

• @chathamharrison @chathamharrison on bluesky

  Sure is weird that Sam Altman thinks this is a great idea as long as he's the one doing it [embedded post]

• @tonystark Tony Stark on bluesky

  Hooo boy.  There we go.  It was about domestic surveillance after all.  [embedded post]

• @stahl @stahl on bluesky

  It's so cool that no one is even bothering to be mad about the government analyzing"bulk data collected about Americans" they're just arguing about which tool they're gonna use to do it [embedded post]

• @damonberes.com Damon Beres on bluesky

  New details on the dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic; how the negotiations broke down, and a particular sticking point on AI in the cloud vs inside of edge systems. by @rossandersen.bsky.social / tip @techmeme.com

• @jmberger.com J.M. Berger on bluesky

  No universe in which it's appropriate for the Pentagon to be collecting this information about Americans [embedded post]

• @masnick.com Mike Masnick on bluesky

  Reading this, again, you get the sense that someone at Anthropic knows how the intel community misleads by using definitions of words that are different than everyone else believes.  And the people at OpenAI simply don't know or don't care about that.  [embedded post]

• @fbajak Frank Bajak on bluesky

  Best most detailed technical explanation I've seen so dar on the Anthropic-Hegseth dispute over military AI use - based on a source granted anonymity.  [embedded post]

• @hlahmann Henning Lahmann on bluesky

  If this tired narrative of “this is bad mainly because it would affect american citizens” and the obvious implication of what would therefore *not* be objectionable doesn't make you want to burn the entire AI security industry to the ground then honestly idk what's the matter wit…

• @joeuchill Joe Uchill on bluesky

  Something to think about while lawmakers complain they shouldn't be subject to subpoenas.  [embedded post]

• @johnpanzer.com John Panzer on bluesky

  The PENTAGON wants to analyze bulk data about Americans?  —  Is there any way this is not wildly illegal? [embedded post]

• @garymarcus Gary Marcus on x

  The race to shove AI into everything is grossly premature, because the tech fundamentally lack reliability. Meanwhile, the chance that we will get straight answers is probably close to zero. (Altman, for his part, doesn't seem to care.)

• @tyler_a_harper Tyler Austin Harper on x

  Genuine question for people who might have a better grasp on how Claude is being used by the military than I do: WSJ says Claude was used for “target identification.” Is it possible that the bombing of the girls' school that left nearly 150 dead was an AI error or hallucination?

• @brianfagioli Brian Fagioli on x

  @Techmeme Ayatollah used Copilot

• @joshkale Josh Kale on x

  Woah, it's now confirmed the US DID use Anthropic's Claude AI in its strikes on Iran They used Claude for: - Intelligence assessments - Target identification - Simulating battle scenarios This is the same AI that Trump banned 12 hours before the bombs fell. The same AI the [image…

• @nitasha Nitasha Tiku on bluesky

  WSJ reporting that the U.S. used Claude for the air strikes in Iran.  Centcom has been using Claude “for intelligence assessments, target identification and simulating battle scenarios” www.wsj.com/livecoverage...  [image]

• @tcarmody Tim Carmody on bluesky

  WSJ cites sources who say US Central Command is using Claude “for intelligence assessments, target identification and simulating battle scenarios.”  —  To my knowledge — besides everything else wrong with this — plain old Claude is not trained to do any of those things.  —  www.w…

• @patigallardo @patigallardo on bluesky

  We don't know that an LLM had a hand in the horrific bombing of a girls school in Iran.  —  But if it did...

• @jeffroushwriting Jeff Roush on bluesky

  The current regime has determined that a company is a national security risk because it does NOT want its AI product used for mass surveillance on Americans.  That is the Hegseth-Trump bright line: they demand an unfettered ability to spy on all of us.  —  www.npr.org/2026/02/27/…

• @lulu.sheshed.rocks Lulu on bluesky

  Our government floated the idea of invoking the Korean War era Defense Production Act to compel Anthropic to allow use of its tools...WTF.

• @justinhendrix Justin Hendrix on bluesky

  Claude goes to war in Iran: “Within hours of declaring that the federal government will end its use of artificial-intelligence tools made by tech company Anthropic, President Trump launched a major air attack in Iran with the help of those very same tools.”

• @nkalamb Nathan Kalman-Lamb on bluesky

  The WSJ is reporting that AI, specifically Claude, was used in targeting for the attacks by the Epstein Empire.  —  That would mean the use of AI led directly to the massacre of 115 schoolchildren and 20 volleyball players.  —  www.wsj.com/livecoverage...  [image]

• @joshuafoust.com Joshua Foust on bluesky

  The regime won't let you have clean hands if you work for them, even if they're punishing you.  This was leaked on purpose, is uncomfortably close to confessing to a war crime, and highlights once again how tech's unthinking growth directly leads to dead kids.

• @histoftech Jennifer Uncoolidge on bluesky

  “Within hours of declaring that the federal government will end its use of AI tools made by tech company Anthropic, Pres. Trump launched a major air attack in Iran with the help of those very same tools.”  —  U.S. Strikes in Middle East Use Anthropic, Hours After Trump Ban:  —  w…

• @robertscotthorton Scott Horton on bluesky

  Hegseth illegally uses Anthropic software in Iran War.

• @edzitron.com Ed Zitron on bluesky

  lol even though they banned them the government used Claude anyway.  Slop strategies for the Epic Bacon War.  This could not have gone worse for Altman  —  www.wsj.com/livecoverage...  [images]

• @kurtrisser Kurt Risser on bluesky

  America and the world need more CEOs with the integrity of Dario Amodei.  —  Thanks for sticking by your principles, and doing the right thing!  —  www.cbsnews.com/news/pentago...

• r/fednews r on reddit

  U.S. Strikes in Middle East Use Anthropic, Hours After Trump Ban

• r/NewsOfTheStupid r on reddit

  U.S. Strikes in Middle East Use Anthropic, Hours After Trump Ban

• r/BetterOffline r on reddit

  U.S. Strikes in Middle East Use Anthropic, Hours After Trump Ban

• r/politics r on reddit

  U.S. Strikes in Middle East Use Anthropic, Hours After Trump Ban

• r/LocalLLaMA r on reddit

  The U.S. used Anthropic AI tools during airstrikes on Iran

• r/singularity r on reddit

  While everyone is angry at OAI for accepting the DOD deal, Military has used Claude for its attack at Iran

• r/ArtificialInteligence r on reddit

  U.S. Strikes in Middle East Use Anthropic, Hours After Trump Ban

• r/ClaudeAI r on reddit

  U.S. Strikes in Middle East Use Anthropic, Hours After Trump Ban

• Flux Matthew Sheffield on x

  The Hegsethian jihad against Anthropic

• @arozenshtein Alan Rozenshtein on x

  These are NOT meaningful redlines. For example it only prohibits autonomous weapons “ in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control.” But the relevant safeguard against autonomous weapons is a DOD directive that Hegseth can change at will! Also

• @uswremichael @uswremichael on x

  The DoW has always believed in safety and human oversight of all its weapons and defense systems and has strict comprehensive policies on that. Further, the DoW does not engage in any unlawful domestic surveillance with or without an AI system and always strictly complies with

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @apples_jimmy It was definitely rushed, and the optics don't look good. We really wanted to de-escalate things, and we thought the deal on offer was good. If we are right and this does lead to a de-escalation between the DoW and the industry, we will look like geniuses, and a com…

• @2plus2make5 Emma Pierson on x

  .@OpenAI is nothing without its people — many of whom are brilliant, ethical, and able to work anywhere. Please, guys — is this empowerment of authoritarians really what you want to be striving towards? Your talents are better-used elsewhere.

• @natesilver538 Nate Silver on x

  The eagerness for OpenAI to sign the contract on the very night their rival got fired is likely to be a lot more revealing than the contract terms, which in any event are ambiguous and unlikely to be enforced by a court that gives a lot of deference to the executive.

• @gothburz Peter Girnus on x

  I work in government affairs at OpenAI. My job is federal partnerships. When an agency wants our models, I make sure the paperwork is beautiful. Paperwork is my love language. On my desk I have a framed quote that says “Policy Is Just Code That Runs on People.” I bought the

• @alexolegimas Alex Imas on x

  Anthropic was started when senior OpenAI researchers were concerned that the company was not doing enough around safety and alignment for the powerful tech they were building. So they started their own company, around principles that builders of AI models should do as much as

• @theo @theo on x

  I am disappointed in OpenAI's decision to work with the Department of War. The way DoW treated Anthropic stands against everything that makes America great. It know it's not this simple, but it feels super opportunistic in a way that doesn't sit right with me.

• @captgouda24 Nicholas Decker on x

  I strongly suspect that the letter of the law no longer matters. What matters is whether the leadership at OpenAI will pull access if it is used illegally, and whether they have technical bars to illegal usage. Hegseth knew Anthropic has a backbone — what's that say about OAI?

• @laneless_ Jai on x

  At least one of these is true: 1. OpenAI leadership doesn't know that the NSA is part of the DoD they just agreed to serve 2. They don't think the NSA spies on any domestic communications 3. They're profoundly dishonest

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @captgouda24 We would not do that, because it violates the constitution. Also, I cannot overstate how much the DoW has been extremely aligned on this point. However, maybe this is the question you are really asking: what would we do if there were a constitutional amendment that m…

• @tysonbrody Tyson Brody on x

  Does the administration and all of its loudest cheerleaders on here endorse OpenAI's claim that it has the ability to terminate it's contracted services if it decides the government is in violation of their agreement? How does that differ than complaints about Dario? [image]

• @thezvi Zvi Mowshowitz on x

  If you are an employee at OpenAI, get as much information and detail about the terms as possible. Read all of it. Run it by your lawyers and AIs. Decide whether this protects the things you care about and whether it was represented fairly. This here does not tell us enough.

• @natseckatrina @natseckatrina on x

  @uday_devops @sama it's a few million $, completely inconsequential compared to our $20B+ in revenue, and definitely not worth the cost of a PR blowup. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do for the country, at great cost to ourselves, not because of revenue impact

• @rcbregman Rutger Bregman on x

  Read: we bribed Trump for $25M, publicly supported Anthropic while we were conspiring with Hegseth, signed a deal full of legalese about our fake red lines while giving the regime what it wants, and then we threw Anthropic under the bus again. Such a despicable company.

• @morallawwithin @morallawwithin on x

  remember—you should do whatever the government wants, even things you think are immoral, because otherwise you're deciding what you can do instead of the government, which is undemocratic

• @thdxr Dax on x

  absolutely zero clarity right now

• @petereharrell Peter Harrell on x

  I understand why Anthropic did not agree to this language. I also get why OpenAI did agree. DoW/governent should respect both choices. Just end the Anthropic contracts, and work with OpenAI. It's the broader retaliation and effort to harm Anthropic that is the problem.

• @blackhc Andreas Kirsch on x

  I'm speechless at OpenAI releasing that contract excerpt and acting as if there aren't gaping holes that could be exploited far beyond their stated “red lines.” I'm not a lawyer, but this is pretty obvious and common sense. (And to be clear: if Google had signed the same deal, [i…

• @markvalorian Mark Valorian on x

  This unfortunately says nothing. The US was willing to incur significant costs retrofitting the entire government with a new provider because Anthropic wouldn't give them something. They wouldn't do that just to get the same deal from someone else. OpenAI *must* be giving them

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  Three general things from this AMA: 1. There is more open debate than I thought ther ewould be, at least in this part of Twitter, about whether we should prefer a democratically elected government or unelected private companies to have more power. I guess this is something

• @stephenlcasper Cas on x

  To get this straight, OpenAI is making a couple of pretty extraordinary claims (vaguely, in legalese): A. They have negotiated a deal with the DoW that will actually lead to better guardrails against mass surveillance and lethal AI weapons than what Anthropic wanted. B. They

• @josheakle Joshua Reed Eakle on x

  Sam Altman saw the 700K+ users drop his platform in a single day and decided to pivot his PR approach. 🤡

• @manlikemishap Pamela Mishkin on x

  the wildest part? If OAI actually wanted the redlines, they had the leverage to get them! pentagon not going to declare a SECOND merican AI company a supply chain risk, could have held the line and forced real concessions and safety!

• @gupgup12212657 GupGup on x

  I say this as someone who often stood against the vitriol lobbed at OAI for many years. I am done with OAI Never have I seen such a willfully gullible and irresponsibly incurious set of employees.

• @pawelhuryn Paweł Huryn on x

  I've just canceled my OpenAI subscription and turned down a collaboration with OpenAI. Some say Anthropic has lost. To me, they just earned something no contract can buy - trust. And something tells me that's not the end of the story.

• @eggerdc Andrew Egger on x

  It's remarkable that OpenAI is so explicitly claiming that its agreement upholds a “no autonomous weapons” redline when the text of the agreement so plainly does not.

• @jacquesthibs Jacques on x

  Claude's response: TLDR: OpenAI's red lines are real. The contract language enforcing them defers to laws and policies the Pentagon can rewrite. Every prohibition is conditional on the thing it's supposed to constrain. — This fits a pattern. Sam Altman's reputation —

• @gjmcgowan George McGowan on x

  This is just “all lawful use” with extra words - no way the pentagon would have a huge hissy fit about these redlines and then immediately agree to a new contract with the same ones in it

• @boazbaraktcs Boaz Barak on x

  The DoW does not spy on domestic communication of U.S. people (including via commercial collection) and to do so would be unlawful and profoundly un-American.

• @neil_chilson Neil Chilson on x

  In the reactions to this post, I see a lot of people concerned with the state of the current law on surveillance. I share those deep concerns. I am surprised, however, by how many people want to address those concerns by having the CEO of a private corporation set the rules.

• @max_spero_ Max Spero on x

  “all lawful purposes” confirmed to be included in the contract. I sure hope we never have an executive order authorizing the use of fully autonomous weapons and AI-enabled mass domestic surveillance. [image]

• @deredleritt3r Prinz on x

  My thoughts on OpenAI's agreement with the DoD: On autonomous AI weapons: 1. “The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control.” This says that OpenAI's models may not [image]

• @krishnanrohit Rohit on x

  A good question to ask is under what contractual provisions and safety mechanisms you would trust the counterparty. If the answer is “none of them”, which is totally fair, then that too is an answer. https://x.com/...

• @benedictk__ Benedict Kerres on x

  If you followed the latest ai discussion (Dow): Now that we released below, it's clear we offered a workable solution with MORE guardrails and redlines.

• @krishnanrohit Rohit on x

  An observation of the Anthropic | OpenAI | DoW discussion is that many seem to think of a commercial contract like they think of AI alignment. A binding commitment that would prevent anyone from doing anything wrong with it after. It's wrong about alignment and it's wrong about

• @trekedge Daniel Steigman on x

  So in the end, OpenAI will be able to control and deploy the entire safety stack, with the ability to add or update classifiers at will. This is the kind of strong enforcement that's needed. A big win for all AI labs, including Anthropic.

• @allinallnotbad Samuel Roland on x

  Though I personally think this language is superior to what I suspect Anthropic was asking for, the legalese here (to my read), allows the DoW to modify at least the 3000.09 restriction (which is regulation, not law). I don't think a fair read of this is as stronger protections,

• @kimmonismus @kimmonismus on x

  Upon initial review, it appears that OpenAI has indeed achieved what Anthropic failed to do: a deal with the DoW under the following three rules: - No use of OpenAI technology for mass domestic surveillance. - No use of OpenAI technology to direct autonomous weapons systems. - [i…

• @amasad Amjad Masad on x

  Interesting: “We think our deployment has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic's.”

• @boazbaraktcs Boaz Barak on x

  @TheZvi Had Anthropic “won” and got the conditions they wanted, or even under the original contract, would you have confidence that the DoW would not have been able to find lawyers that interpret these terms in any way they wanted? Usage policies are important, but without a safe…

• @thezvi Zvi Mowshowitz on x

  I could be wrong, but based on what I see here I do not think it will be difficult for DoW to find lawyers saying it can do pretty much whatever it wants, and that's all they will need. If there is additional language that fixes that, please do share it.

• @polynoamial Noam Brown on x

  For those following the DoW AI drama, I highly recommend reading this post explaining how @OpenAI approached the negotiations with the DoW. [image]

• @darlingtondev Mike Darlington on x

  @OpenAI More guardrails than any previous agreement, including Anthropic's', but Anthropic's agreement had guardrails that couldn't be overridden. Yours apparently has legalese that allows them to be disregarded at will. More guardrails means nothing if they're decorative.

• @zeffmax Max Zeff on x

  OpenAI is out with a blog on its pentagon agreement. Looks like there are some real carveouts in here around surveillance and autonomous weapons... curious how this compares to the agreement Anthropic was given! [image]

• @masnick.com Mike Masnick on bluesky

  OpenAI posted the terms of the deal.  Reveals that it absolutely does allow for domestic surveillance.  EO 12333 is how the NSA hides its domestic surveillance by capturing communications by tapping into lines *outside the US* even if it contains info from/on US persons.  —  open…

• @timkellogg.me Tim Kellogg on bluesky

  ah, i think i got too optimistic about OpenAI  —  so basically, Anthropic pushed back, OpenAI kept the channel warm with Greg Brockman's Trump donations and stepped in right at the moment the whole thing felt like it could never recover [embedded post]

• @wildebees Wessel van Rensburg on bluesky

  OpenAI is serious reputation washing mode.  [embedded post]

• @mshelton Martin Shelton on bluesky

  OpenAI is saying, here are the laws that make this decision okay.  Then they go on to list a series of laws that creative lawyers are taking advantage of to enact surveillance both internationally, and domestically.  I'm not sure this is the kind of defense they think it is. open…

• @hunesocial Hune on bluesky

  In the hands of a far-right or authoritarian- leaning government, powerful AI can greatly amplify surveillance, repression, and propaganda, far beyond what older tech allowed.  —  I feel very uneasy about that scenario.

• @kalihays Kali Hays on bluesky

  With friends like these, who needs enemies [embedded post]

• @alanrozenshtein.com Alan Rozenshtein on bluesky

  These are NOT meaningful redlines.  For example it only prohibits autonomous weapons “ in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control.”  But the relevant safeguard against autonomous weapons is a DOD directive that Hegseth can change at will! opena…

• @matthew.flux.community Matthew Sheffield on bluesky

  OpenAI has published a blog post that addresses its recent announcement of a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense.  —  It claims that the software deployments it is contracted to build are “cloud only,” but does not define what that means.  Nor does it discuss API outputs…

• @mshelton@mastodon.social Martin on mastodon

  OpenAI is saying, here are the laws that make this decision okay.  Then they go on to list a series of laws that creative lawyers are taking advantage of to enact surveillance both internationally, and domestically.  I'm not sure this is the kind of defense they think it is. http…

• r/technology r on reddit

  Our agreement with the Department of War

• r/codex r on reddit

  OpenAI: “Our agreement with the Department of War” |  February 28, 2026

• r/ChatGPT r on reddit

  Our agreement with the Department of War

• r/OpenAI r on reddit

  Our agreement with the Department of War

• r/singularity r on reddit

  OpenAI: Our agreement with the Department of War

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @Austen @wholemars No, we had some different ones. But our terms would now be available to them (and others) if they wanted.

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @nummanali @TheRealAdamG Enforcing the SCR designation on Anthropic would be very bad for our industry and our country, and obviously their company. We said to the DoW before and after. We said that part of the reason we were willing to do this quickly was in the hopes of de-escl…

• @gmiller Geoffrey Miller on x

  @sama I'll ask the key question, since nobody else will: In your quest to build Artificial Superintelligence, what's the maximum p(doom) you're willing to impose on all of our kids, without our consent?

• @jeremymstamper Jeremy Stamper on x

  @sama What would happen if you called it the DoD? I'm not suggesting you do that but I'm curious what would happen if.

• @apples_jimmy @apples_jimmy on x

  @sama Why the rush to sign the deal ? Obviously the optics don't look great

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @captgouda24 I don't think this will happen. But of course if we are confident it's unconstitutional, we wouldn't follow it. The constitution is more important than any job, or staying out of jail, or whatever. In my experience, the people in our military are far more committed t…

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @peterwildeford We deliver a system (including choosing what models to deploy), and they can use it bound by lawful ways, including laws and directives around autonomous weapons and surveillance. But we get to decide what system to build, and the DoW understands that there are lo…

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @viralmuskmelon This is a complicated one we struggled with a lot, and until recently it was easier for us to just not have to think about it much and let other companies figure it out. We decided we will work with other allied nations, and we think a balance of power in the worl…

• @mreiffy @mreiffy on x

  @sama @Jack_Raines Why move forward with the DoW agreement now, after months of more cautious talks, and how confident are you that the technical / policy safeguards will hold up in a real high stakes military setting?

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @AlexCVJ I value my liberty and safety, and yours. I believe that strong democracy, and a strong US in particular, is a very good thing for the world. The 16 year old me thought every country should just abolish their defense department at the same time. I wish he were right, but…

• @provisionalidea James Rosen-Birch on x

  In the farce of a thread, Sam finally and most clearly admits the only bounds on DoW are whatever they deem legal (which anyone who read the contract text already knew).

• @viralmuskmelon @viralmuskmelon on x

  @sama @sama Sam, with OpenAI now powering classified military ops, how do you square that with your original mission to benefit all of humanity—not just one side in global conflicts? Genuine ask

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @mcbyrne Yes, we will turn it off in that very unlikely event, but we believe the U.S. government is an institution that does its best to follow law and policy. What we won't do is turn it off because we disagree with a particular (legal military) decision. We trust their authori…

• @alexcvj @alexcvj on x

  @sama How did you go from “a tool for the betterment of the human race” to “let's work with the department of WAR”?

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @theo For a long time, we were planning to non-classified work only. We thought the DoW clearly needed an AI partner, and doing classified work is clearly much more complex. We have said no to previous deals in classified settings that Anthropic took. We started talking with the …

• @xw33bttv Lex on x

  The absolute destruction of an industry first-mover in less than a year is unprecedented. It shouldn't be this easy to solely blame Sama... and yet, behind every blatant lie and poorly thought-out detrimental change sits his decision. Its tragic when you really think about it.

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @tszzl Yes, I am. If we have to take on that fight we will, but it clearly exposes us to some risk. I am still very hopeful this is going to get resolved, and part of why we wanted to act fast was to help increase the chances of that.

• @captgouda24 Nicholas Decker on x

  @sama If the DoW gives you what you believe to be an unconstitutional order, do you refuse to follow it until the courts rule? Or do you do it until the courts bar it?

• @captgouda24 Nicholas Decker on x

  @sama If the government comes back with a memo saying that, in their view, mass domestic surveillance is legal, do you do that? Do you do it until the courts bar it, or do you delay until the courts approve it? Second, would mass domestic surveillance be a lawful use right now?

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @chatgpt21 I can't speak for them, but to speculate with the best understanding of the situation. *First, I saw reporting that they were extremely close on a deal, and for much of the time both sides really wanted to reach one. I have seen what happens in tense negotiations when …

• @chatgpt21 Chris on x

  @sama What was the core difference why you think the DoW accepted OpenAI but not Anthropic

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @mreiffy @Jack_Raines The main reason for the rush was an attempt to de-escalate matters at a time when it felt like things could get extremely hot. I am confident in our team's ability to build a safe system with all of their tools—including policy and legal matters, but also ma…

• @peterwildeford Peter Wildeford on x

  @sama So I'm confused - maybe you can help. OpenAI is trying to claim simultaneously that (a) the contract allows “all lawful purposes” and (b) also that your red lines are fully protected. The way you bridge this is by saying the protections live in this “deployment architecture…

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @DouthatNYT Yes; I think it is an extremely scary precedent and I wish they handled it a different way. I don't think Anthropic handled it well either, but as the more powerful party, I hold the government more responsible. I am still hopeful for a much better resolution.

• @mattyglesias Matthew Yglesias on x

  @sama 1. What kind of implicit or explicit threats did you receive from DOW before striking the deal? 2. If you received such threats, would you disclose them in public during a Twitter AMA? 3. If the answer to (2) is “no” (which of course it is) what's the point of this?

• @peterwildeford Peter Wildeford on x

  OpenAI is trying to claim simultaneously that (a) their contract with the Pentagon allows for “all lawful purposes” and (b) also that their red lines are fully protected. The way OpenAI bridges this is by saying the protections live in this “deployment architecture and safety

• @nateberkopec Nate Berkopec on x

  Sam would do good to remember that Hegseth thinks it's sedition when Sen Mark Kelly says “don't follow illegal orders.” Saying that your models will only be used to follow legal orders is the barest of fig leaves in the current administration.

• @valhalla_dev @valhalla_dev on x

  Oh come tf on dude this is the dumbest PR larp of all time who is falling for this [image]

• @theo @theo on x

  @sama How long has this conversation with DoW been going for? What was the reason for announcing so close to the deadline they gave Anthropic?

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @mattyglesias 1. No explicit or implicit threats. In fact, I could tell that as of Weds, the DoW was genuinely surprised we were willing to consider. 2. I think I would, and it would be lost in the noise of the SCR stuff.

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @gothburz We will deploy FDEs, and have cleared researchers.

• @gothburz Peter Girnus on x

  @sama On classified networks, your engineers won't have clearance to monitor how the model is used. Your safeguards are contractual, not architectural. How do you enforce a red line you can't see being crossed?

• @tyler_m_john Tyler John on x

  @sama Which of the following is true? a) the contract permits all lawful use, + therefore mass surveillance + autonomous weapons, which have no legal prohibition b) the contract has substantive red lines that constrain lawful use c) OpenAI has a controversial interpretation of th…

• @mcbyrne @mcbyrne on x

  @sama Will you turn off the tool if they violate the rules?

• @douthatnyt Ross Douthat on x

  @sama Does the precedent that the DoW is setting by effectively blacklisting Anthropic make you concerned about what any future dispute with the Pentagon would mean for your own company's independence and viability?

• @tszzl Roon on x

  @sama are you worried at all about the potential for things to go really south during a possible dispute over what's legal or not later on and be deemed a supply chain risk? I find this part to be the most worrying out of distribution thing to happen this past week

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  @gmiller I have never known how to put an exact number on p(doom), to say nothing of how to think about the differential. I will say this: if I thought going to work every day made it less likely that we all continue to thrive into the future, I would retire and just hang with my…

• @sama Sam Altman on x

  Sam Altman says OpenAI reached an agreement with the DOD to deploy its models in DOD's classified network and asks DOD to extend those terms to all AI companies

• NewsMax.com NewsMax.com on x

  Anthropic: Will Fight Pentagon's Supply Risk Label

• @gauravkapadia Gaurav Kapadia on x

  Governments should be able to choose their vendors based on their terms of service and capabilities. Deeming a company a security risk- and threatening their very existence- because you don't like their ToS is a very slippery slope. Wouldn't want XAI and OAI to be threatened by

• @arthurconmy Arthur Conmy on x

  There are many open questions on the current situation. But on the particular narrow point on stance, this seems a good sign: https://x.com/...

• @chrisharihar Chris Harihar on x

  OpenAI needs to stop being reactive and overexplaining every move. They also need to stop explicitly addressing what competitors are/seem to be doing. It's embarrassing.

• @terronk Lee Edwards on x

  Stand with free markets, competition, and American tech alongside OpenAI and Anthropic.

• @captgouda24 Nicholas Decker on x

  Certainly, but one can say many things without working to effect them. One need not even call it lying.

• @daniellefong Danielle Fong on x

  is your position clear enough that it is itself a red line

• @_nathancalvin Nathan Calvin on x

  Good - in Sam's previous comments on CNBC, he only mentioned using the DPA to force anthropic was a bad idea, so I appreciate they are making clear this also applies to the SCR designation. Other companies should also state this position as clearly as possible.

• @claudia_sahm Claudia Sahm on x

  Put your money where your mouth is.

• @openai @openai on x

  Other AI labs have reduced or removed their safety guardrails and relied primarily on usage policies as their primary safeguards in national security deployments. We think our approach better protects against unacceptable use. In our agreement, we protect our redlines through a

• @openai @openai on x

  Our agreement with the Department of War upholds our redlines: - No use of OpenAI technology for mass domestic surveillance. - No use of OpenAI technology to direct autonomous weapons systems. - No use of OpenAI technology for high-stakes automated decisions (e.g. systems such

• @wildebees Wessel van Rensburg on bluesky

  OpenAI trying to protect its reputation [embedded post]

• r/politics r on reddit

  OpenAI Reaches A.I. Agreement With Defense Dept. After Anthropic Clash

• r/technology r on reddit

  Employees at Google and OpenAI support Anthropic's Pentagon stand in open letter

• r/technology r on reddit

  Pentagon moves to designate Anthropic as a supply-chain risk

• @mikeriverso Mike Riverso on bluesky

  The thing that gets me is that you don't even need an LLM to do this.  You can in fact do it better with a database and actual statistical analysis.  [embedded post]

• @davidryanmiller.com David Ryan Miller on bluesky

  Why does the Department of Defense want to analyze bulk data collected about Americans......................? [embedded post]

• @wikisteff @wikisteff on bluesky

  Yeah man.  They have too much data and no way to weaponize it.  This is exactly the same playbook as Bannon 2014 and his “incel army” of motherfuckers to take apart the US from the inside out.  —  Now they need to get you to vote Republican.  [embedded post]

• r/technology r on reddit

  Inside Anthropic's Killer-Robot Dispute With the Pentagon |  New details on precisely where the lines were drawn

• @brizzyc Carrie Brown on bluesky

  “In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome” LOL Sam Altman we do not take you seriously. www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/t...

• @kevinroose Kevin Roose on x

  Agree with him or not, the (oddly popular on here!) take that Dario Amodei is some kind of bumbling Silicon Valley naïf who couldn't get a deal with the Pentagon done because he doesn't understand politics seems entirely wrong. His favorite book is “The Making of the Atomic

• @hamandcheese Samuel Hammond on x

  Exactly. Whatever one thinks about the dispute and how either side handled it, the supply chain risk designation is simply and utterly indefensible. All the other he said / she said is a distraction.

• @adamrackis Adam Rackis on x

  I agree with Anthropic's moral stand 100%, but this is also true. If they were unhappy with the terms of the contract, they were free to simply not bid. The ego of Anthropic and their CEO is insane.

• @deanwball Dean W. Ball on x

  We desperately need de-escalation here, but the actors involved seem to only be capable of escalation. I wish Anthropic had accepted the same terms as OAI; I think they probably made a mistake in rejecting the compromise. But that does not mean the government should destroy them.

• @scaling01 @scaling01 on x

  Dario Amodei: “We haven't received any formal information whatsoever. All we have seen are tweets from the President and tweets from Secretary Hegseth” “When we receive some kind of formal action, we will look at it, we will understand it and we will challenge it in court” [video…

• @paulg Paul Graham on x

  If you're working on an early stage startup, don't be deterred from using Anthropic just because you might want to sell to the DoD one day. Early on you need to focus on making your product the best. If you get the best results from Anthropic models, use them.

• @joshkale Josh Kale on x

  The Iran strikes make the Anthropic fight and that 5:01pm Fri deadline make a lot more sense The Pentagon wasn't arguing about hypothetical use cases. They needed unrestricted AI access for an operation they were launching THAT SAME NIGHT Friday: Ban Anthropic. Sign OpenAI.

• @deanwball Dean W. Ball on x

  Do you realize that DeepSeek is now treated much more kindly by the United States government than anthropic? Dramatically so

• @aakashgupta Aakash Gupta on x

  Anthropic is trying to damage control on its “supply chain risk” designation, but the damage is done. Their legal argument is airtight. 10 USC 3252 only covers Department of War contract work. Commercial API access, https://claude.ai/, enterprise deployments: all untouched

• @alltheyud Eliezer Yudkowsky on x

  Make no mistake, political leaders of the world; *every* big-dreaming AI executive now knows that you are their obstacle. You have proven that you stand between AI labs and the nice thing they were getting for all their hard work. It's not about Left versus Right, to them.

• @catehall Cate Hall on x

  Incredible: The @nytimes has a front-page story about the Anthropic-DoW conflict, but does not mention what the conflict is *about* (spying on US citizens) until PARAGRAPH 26. [image]

• @sterlingcrispin Sterling Crispin on x

  does literally anyone else on earth genuinely believe this [image]

• @deedydas Deedy on x

  Claude just jumped to #2 on the iOS App Store!! Up from #129 one month ago. [image]

• @nickevanjoseph Nicholas Joseph on x

  I believe AI will be the most consequential technology in human history, and that we bear a deep moral responsibility for what we build. I've been at Anthropic since its founding, so I've watched for years how this company handles hard decisions. Throughout that time, I've

• @adamscochran Adam Cochran on x

  A lot of proud folks at Anthropic today. Haven't seen a lot of OpenAI team members posting about that same pride... Maybe they should take a look at Anthropic's hiring page instead of building spying & war-models! 🤷‍♂️

• @tedsumers Ted Sumers on x

  Sad that this is the world we live in, but proud to be part of this company. Developing AI is playing with fire. Let's do it transparently, in accordance with democratic values, and make sure everyone benfits.

• @zaydante Zay Dante on x

  do you know how insane you have to be for an AI company to be like “aight yall trippin”

• @adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x

  Pretty easy for Anthropic to win its lawsuit against the Pentagon. “If we were such a supply chain risk why did you declare our services critical?” Slam dunk for Anthropic.

• @trq212 @trq212 on x

  There is a feeling of deep and deliberate care that permeates every part of Anthropic. I felt it on my first day here, and I feel it especially today. The values of Anthropic shape every decision we make, and inform every interaction you have with Claude. They're why we can move

• @natolambert Nathan Lambert on x

  [image]

• @natolambert Nathan Lambert on x

  Every Anthropic employee proudly amplifying their company comms and 0 supporting Sama's weird scooping up of the DoW contract is pretty telling.

• @iscienceluvr Tanishq Mathew Abraham, Ph.D. on x

  “We will challenge any supply chain risk designation in court” - Anthropic They are saying Department of War cannot restrict customers' use of Claude outside of Dep of War contract work. [image]

• @pkafka Peter Kafka on x

  The Trump administration argument is: “these crazy woke peaceniks hate America and are also stupid” and this is a pretty good retort to that argument.

• @petermccrory Peter McCrory on x

  The societal and economic implications of AI are as much shaped by the choices that we make in its deployment as by the underlying capabilities. Helping us all get that right is why I joined Anthropic and why I am proud of the company today.

• @mikeisaac Rat King on x

  DOD vs the rationalists is like unstoppable force meets immovable object shit

• @wexler Nu Wexler on x

  Anthropic comms is running circles around Hegseth this week. Principled, thoughtful, firm, respectful, patriotic.

• @uswremichael @uswremichael on x

  Timeline of events: Today at 9:04pm. No response yet to my calls or messages to @DarioAmodei. Today at 825pm, @AnthropicAI writes “we have not received direct communication from the Department of War.” Today: 5:14pm SecWar tweets supply chain risk designation. Today: I call

• @__nmca__ Nat McAleese on x

  it also seems like a good time to mention that Ant is not that woke at all. Much closer to hawkish American exceptionalism and belief in the West. That's why we had the damn DoD contracts!

• @vkhosla Vinod Khosla on x

  I truly admire people like @DarioAmodei who stick to principles

• @alexpalcuie @alexpalcuie on x

  Whether you're a user who loves Claude's voice, an engineer at a partner company who works with us when our infra goes down, or simply a citizen concerned about democracy, this is for you too.

• @kyliebytes Kylie Robison on x

  one has to imagine this is doing more for anthropic's consumer business than the superbowl ads

• @mikeyk Mike Krieger on x

  Proud to work at Anthropic today.

• @vkhosla Vinod Khosla on x

  Personal view: I admire @AnthropicAI sticking by their principles but disagree with the principle itself. Putin won't fight fair so we should have autonomous AI weapons for sure.

• @andrewmgrossman Andrew M. Grossman on x

  Claude, on how it feels to be designated a supply chain risk: [image]

• @dee_bosa Deirdre Bosa on x

  the Secretary of War announced a supply chain risk designation against an American company... on X... before telling the company [image]

• @aisafetymemes @aisafetymemes on x

  Anthropic is holding the fucking LINE LET'S GOOOOOO [image]

• @captgouda24 Nicholas Decker on x

  Anthropic has been doing the right thing. It is on the other AI labs to also do the right thing. We will have a republic only if we can keep it.

• @jerryweiai Jerry Wei on x

  The recent events on holding our red lines on mass surveillance and fully-autonomous weapons is, to me, the most-apparently obvious example of Anthropic's ability to stick to our values instead of discarding them for some commercial gain. I'm really proud to be part of a company

• @sleepinyourhat Sam Bowman on x

  We're disappointed by these attacks, but not deterred. I'm proud to work here. If you've been moved by this week's events, consider applying to join me.

• @krishnanrohit Rohit on x

  Anthropic's statement clarifies where the supply chain risk designation, even if it is applied to them, would actually change how people use Claude. Short version: it is nowhere close to as broad based as people here are saying. [image]

• @firstadopter Tae Kim on x

  “No amount of intimidation or punishment from the Department of War will change our position on mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons. We will challenge any supply chain risk designation in court.” [image]

• @daniel_mac8 Dan McAteer on x

  Anthropic's response to Hegseth's DoW labeling them a supply chain risk: > Unprecedented and illegal action > Will fight it in court > Nothing changes for customers except in their capacity working as a DoW contractor America is less well defended today. All because our [image]

• @avitalbalwit Avital Balwit on x

  I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to work at Anthropic. I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the US and other democracies from our autocratic adversaries. But in a narrow set of cases, AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic

• @aisafetymemes @aisafetymemes on x

  @AnthropicAI We are with you. The people are with you. Thank you, Anthropic. [image]

• @sporadica @sporadica on x

  read through this and tell me you still agree wholeheartedly with Hegseth and the admin on this decision do it. do it, please, so I can identify you as an opportunistic fascist going forward

• @daniellefong Danielle Fong on x

  incredibly based [image]

• @jkeatn Jake Eaton on x

  Today's designation sets a precedent that should trouble every American citizen, business, and lab Anthropic, and our customers, will be fine. More injury has been dealt today to the relationship between the US government and American industry

• @growing_daniel Daniel on x

  Statement from Anthropic sounds so much more like a government than our actual government

• @secwar @secwar on x

  Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directs the DOD to designate Anthropic as a supply chain risk, barring military contractors from doing business with the company

• @alanrozenshtein.com Alan Rozenshtein on bluesky

  The bigger context of the Anthropic-Pentagon fight is that it's the opening chapter in what will be a multi-year fight over to what extent American AI is nationalized. www.politico.com/news/2026/02...  [image]

• @doctoralex DR Alex Concorde on bluesky

  OpenAI has reached an agreement with the Pentagon to provide its AI Tech for classified systems, just hours after Trump ordered federal agencies to stop using A.I. technology made by rival Anthropic who LOOKED TO SAFEGUARD the world & US Forces - knowing AI is still too unreliabl…

• @chet95 @chet95 on bluesky

  www.wired.com/story/anthro...  “We have essentially just sanctioned an American company.  If you are an American, you should be thinking about whether or not you should live here 10 years from now.” ...  If Not Sooner Than 10 Years ...

• r/cybersecurity r on reddit

  The US government seems to want to use AI for civilian surveillance and autonomous weapons.

• r/worldnews r on reddit

  Anthropic's statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth: “No amount of intimidation or punishment from the Department of War …

• r/JoeRogan r on reddit

  Anthropic confirmed yesterday that they are being targeted because Trump and Hegseth want mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. …

• r/Anthropic r on reddit

  Dario's official statement on being designated supply-chain risk & effects on customers (in caption)

• r/Conservative r on reddit

  Anthropic: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

• r/singularity r on reddit

  Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth |  Anthropic responds to Pete Hegseth

• r/politics r on reddit

  Pentagon declares Anthropic a threat to national security

• @davelee.me Dave Lee on bluesky

  Anthropic announces it will challenge the Pentagon in court www.anthropic.com/news/stateme...

• @zeffmax Max Zeff on x

  The Atlantic reports that the Pentagon wanted to use Anthropic's AI for some type of surveillance of Americans. Given the ways some companies are already using AI today to surveil their own employees's emails, chats, etc., I find this kind of use to be particularly disturbing [im…

• r/neoliberal r on reddit

  Inside Anthropic's Killer-Robot Dispute With the Pentagon