They don't speak the same [proverbial] language essentially. Dario and the WH talk about this stuff completely differently.

https://archive.is/9k7qt#selection-2001.41-2001.49 https://archive.is/dybOE

I'm fairly certain which side of the conversation I'd have trouble understanding. I have trouble understanding it all the time.

I frequently have trouble understanding both sides!

To be fair is quite hard to actually understand what this White House is saying most of the time

Incoherence is a feature, not a bug, of authoritarians

(not necessarily implying it's conscious strategy, authoritarians tend to be actual incoherent dumbasses)

Probably didn't kiss ass as much as most other tech CEOs.

I presume this was one of the lowest points of Tim Cook’s career: https://youtu.be/kSAGUjY2HIs?is=my5VbCBB5Ku-MlLX

Probably wishing it was twice as big, twice as gold, has that Chinese ram deal riding on it.

I was sure this was going to be a massive solid gold iPhone

He's the one who led the choice to refuse working with the gov for surveillance or defense, and it led to that block right after.

I have no proof but I assume he believes at least some of what he's preaching (which doesn't mean he won't fold, at the end of the day it's an american company anyway).

Brown is probably more of a diplomat, "Sure, but not now" goes a lot further than "No, never", though it has the issue of kicking the can down the road.

> He's the one who led the choice to refuse working with the gov for surveillance or defense

This is false and just Anthropic being good at PR. He's happy to let it be used for airstrikes on Iran for example, just wants to keep a human in the loop. So the AI will say 'I am extremely sure this building (a girl school) is a military base' and the human will say 'I am being asked to carry out more airstrikes and who am I to question AI' and will bomb a school with Amodei then washing his hands.

You've mentioned the Iran airstrike twice now. Do you have a source for them using an LLM for their "intelligence" / decision making?

You can find a source for it being used here [1] though parent is misrepresenting it either on purpose or by lacking understanding, I stand to my point above, the timeline is

1. the US used it, in venezuela then to prepare Iran

2. it became public through journals reporting it, but they didn't really hide from it afterwards and told explicitely what and who they used, naming anthropic

3. Diego (the CEO) answered by saying this violate terms and the US is not allowed and should stop that immediately, publicly

4. They have a talk, and while concessions are made it blocks not about war with ennemies but about surveillance at home, which Diego refuses to let go

5. Trump reacted by calling Anthropic a "Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about"

6. Peter Hegseth annonce they will stop using it but asked for a stop gap deal "Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition."

7. Open AI annonce a deal with the governement four and a half HOURS later, with totally cool safeguards "We think our agreement has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic's", journals note that "OpenAI's new Pentagon deal doesn't explicitly prohibit collecting Americans' publicly available information - a sticking point that rival Anthropic says is crucial for ensuring domestic mass surveillance doesn't take place"

8. In totally unrelated news, Anthropic new models get banned for exports in a move the US has never done before, no other company has their models banned

And now

9. Anthropic change the person talking with the gov to Brown

10. After a bit anthropic models start being unbanned

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/01/claude-an...

What part am I misrepresenting, Anthropic CEO explicitly states he's ok with military use as long as there's a human in the loop[1].

He states the Iran school strike 'doesn't even violate our red lines'.

Can you clarify what am I misrepresenting please?

1 - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7DOQlIQxz5M?cbrd=1

Thanks for the break down. I somehow missed the 2nd point. Crazy that they just used an LLM like that.

At the time they needed a scapegoat to explain why they bombed a school so I guess they thought it was the lesser problem

Maybe he just lacks social skills, but I remember watching videos of him talking about mass job loss with what looked like glee on his face. All his actions and communications do not give me a sense that his "principles" are good or even what he claims them to be