You did concede the point in the post I replied to, which is why I replied to it.
I do tend to think that affording people one disagrees with more grace at the time of disagreement is probably prudent. To that end, setting aside pedantic points about whatever the original tweet was referring to, I'm not at all shocked by Anthropic's decisions this week, because my analysis at the time was not based on some sort of personal animus or whatever was ascribed to me, but simply incentives and long-run trends. That analysis holds in terms of this decision. People's declarations and promises change, *especially* when they hold themselves to be moral actors. Suggesting that anyone pointing that out is faking their beliefs to make a point risks missing the more important point completely.
hence why I conceded that exact point! nonetheless, the government was lying when they claimed Anthropic made these threats, as attested by the fact that they don’t make those claims under oath. A suspicion does not justify the policy action the government took. and either way, the point you’re quoting has little to do with this and was instead about the “they say it’s a nuclear weapon so they should expect it to be regulated like a nuclear weapon” line of argument, which I continue to think is fairly thin intellectual gruel. But yes, you were right to mistrust anthropic.
