I'm normally a big value-of-the-mainstream-media defender but I don't see much value in reading articles on the Anthropic/Pentagon stuff given that journalists don't seem to know when they're being used on this topic
Positive users praise the expert's point that media coverage of Anthropic Pentagon ties misses reporters' involvement and click motives, while negative users criticize the company's defense contracting and lack of transparency.
E.g. the Politico "wellness retreat" thing is still in the article even after a separate journalist -- who was at the Anthropic office at the time -- debunked it.
The article still treats it as he said/she said rather than owning up to the mistake.
I'm normally a big value-of-the-mainstream-media defender but I don't see much value in reading articles on the Anthropic/Pentagon stuff given that journalists don't seem to know when they're being used on this topic
I think it's not at all unreasonable, given the history to date, for Dario to interpret demands from this administration as suspect, and to want details on the claimed attack. Per their blog post these were not provided, and based on what info was given (+ per the one independent security researcher who has commented), it was a nothingburger.
If it's not true that Amodei was on the phone with the USG, refused to commit to roll back the model when asked, and was told by Bessent that he's making a "big mistake" (and still refused), then Anthropic should come out and say it. I would be interested in Anthropic's version of this particular set of facts.
Amazon has not, to my knowledge, denied that it reported the issue to the USG.
@Miles_Brundage honestly part of the value of the dc media in particular is the talking points turned to articles are useful indicators of what the admin (any admin) cares about in the moment but tech (broadly, not you) doesnt have the antibodies to realize that is what is happening
*not just suspect as in "potentially politically motivated" but "not necessarily representing a coherent, sustained US government position." In the subsequent 24 hours, a wide range of views were represented from the admin, e.g. that they are "forever" unwelcome at the Pentagon, that it was a quick issue to resolve, etc.
@Miles_Brundage @deredleritt3r these are all nitpicks that might fly on twitter but that sound insane to me if i imagine someone presenting them to a judge in court
"you see, the secretary of the treasury told me i was making a big mistake, but i figured his experts were wrong and so i ignored him"
@Miles_Brundage @deredleritt3r Dario’s a major defense contractor for the USG, who dodged White House phone calls for an hour. Then, nothing was stopping Ant from taking Fable offline to assess the validity of the concerns. Precautionary principle re: powerful AI should have been applied IMO.
It does not sound like he "dodged" calls - senior staff were on the phone immediately and he got on as soon as he could (<75 mins later).
+disagree re: precaution being the right frame - like why wouldn't the US government share the details if the attack were the issue? I believe that some involved *viewed* it as precaution, but they also could have been actually mistaken, which is quite possible for something like this, hence why it's fair for Dario to want more detail.
@Miles_Brundage honestly the most honest take on this ive seen all day
hard to take coverage seriously when the reporters dont know theyre the story too
@Miles_Brundage Okay right? Or they know, but need the views/clicks anyways
@Miles_Brundage this is the part people miss the most
being used is way harder to spot when ur already inside the story
Empirically judges have been fairly receptive to Anthropic’s positions + skeptical of the government’s in similar situations
That being said I think it’s clear Anthropic is not just optimizing for “make govt maximally happy immediately” but cares about policy precedents. This is not the last case like this