AI & Tech

How AI Is Getting Political: Anthropic vs. Trump

Is going against the US Department of Defense recklessness, or proof that you're worth mankind's trust for the future?

I recommend exploring those links first, if you haven't:

For context, Anthropic — the company developing Claude, has been working closely with the US government, and especially with the Department of Defense. Last Friday, they refused a Pentagon contract (worth up to $200 million) because they disagreed to use their AI tools for "mass surveillance of American citizens or to power autonomous weapon systems". Trump response, shortly after the deadline for Anthropic to change their mind was over, announced that the AI company was being blacklisted by government institutions, and labeled a national security risk (a first for a US company). Hours later, even after Sam Altman posted on X stating that he was supporting Anthropic's decision, OpenAI signed a deal with the Department of War.

Two things are standing out to me:

Firstly, it seems like AI companies have finally reached a point where they sit at the same table as governments, for decisions that matter on sensitive subjects. How they impact those decisions is yet to be witnessed.

Secondly, and more surprisingly, some of them are pushing back and disagreeing with some of the most influential people in the world. Whether Anthropic's position is a true sign that values will always be more important than profit, or just a wonderfully well executed PR move (already showing an impact on sales) is a fair question. But currently, choosing to not sign a government deal when everyone is racing to do so, is at least worth noticing.

As for OpenAI, the future will tell us whether they're better negotiators or have less morality and values.

If AI is going to change our lives forever, we'd better start paying attention to who's leading the way, and whether their values hold under pressure.


← Back to writing