Q and it's just an ego blow up. The second is that potentially, is it the Anthropics CEO, Dario Amadei, valiantly standing up against mass surveillance and the potential of mass surveillance through AI? Or third, is this what's really happening if the Department of War valiantly pushing back against a private company dictating it how to run wars? What do you think is closest to the truth in this scenario?
A I mean, there's probably like a little column A, little column B, little column C going on, uh, like fundamentally, but to me, this is about personalities and politics masquerading as a policy dispute, although it raises really important policy issues. And let me, let me tell you what I mean by that. If you look at the relationship between Anthropic and the Pentagon, Anthropic was the first frontier AI lab willing to do classified work. To support American national security. So starting right there, like Anthropic was ready to be behind the scenes with the Pentagon in a way that other frontier AI labs weren't ready to do yet. And Anthropic was also, there was no dispute between Anthropic and the Pentagon about any current projects that Anthropic was doing. It wasn't like the Pentagon asked Anthropic to do something and Anthropic said no or had hesitations. It also seems as though there were not any upcoming projects. That the Pentagon was going to ask Anthropic to do that Anthropic had, uh, had questions or concerns about. It seems like this kind of started when after the Maduro operation, when the United States, uh, uh, plucked, uh, the leader of Venezuela, uh, from, uh, from that nation and brought him back to the United States, that, uh, somebody from Anthropic basically called somebody from Palantir and said, like, hey, was our tech involved there? And that's because the wa…
AI assessment note: “to me, this is about personalities and politics masquerading as a policy dispute”