Anthropic is different because they're committed to safety.

[riley@toot.cat]

@mttaggart Because the first law of aibotics is An AIbot may not injure its grifters' quarterly cash flow or, by inaction, allow said cash flow to come to harm before the quarterly report is out.

[negativek@infosec.exchange]

@mttaggart I'm an optimist. Sometimes they believe what they say and then are fired.

Or they just become a different person. A person that wants money more.

[bltpizza@mastodon.social]

@mttaggart AI WILL IMPRISON US.

[gimulnautti@mastodon.green]

@mttaggart Didn’t the US DOD threaten them with contract loss if they don’t agree to their models being used to kill people?

I would guess they would have to go pretty deep into the core of their reasoning training material to make the models not refuse hurting humans. 🤔

[gimulnautti@mastodon.green]

@Wyatt_H_Knott @mttaggart Conclusion:
Capitalism literally kills people for profit.

[dryak@mstdn.science]

@theorangetheme @mttaggart Wait until some brilliant mind decides to wires those triggers to some agentic AI bot...

[cppguy@infosec.space]

@theorangetheme @mttaggart

"OK, Claude. Whenever you see an enemy plane, I want you to shoot it down without asking me first."

"OK, Claude. Whenever you see a Palestinian, I want you to highlight that person in my HUD. This applies especially if the person is trying to hide from me."

[gullevek@famichiki.jp]

@mttaggart @isotopp So it goes. And also No shit Sherlock

[codinghorror@infosec.exchange]

@mttaggart I would ALWAYS bet against Anthropic, just for their Effective Altruism DNA alone.

[chewie@mammut.gogreenit.net]

@mttaggart "“We didn't really feel, with the rapid advance of AI, that it made sense for us to make unilateral commitments … if competitors are blazing ahead.”

even if those "blazing ahead" are actually creating loads of fires???

[sanpan@mas.to]

@mttaggart From Hegseth‘s ultimatum in the morning to them complying after 4 corporate hours…that‘s like 40 human years of strongly worded dissent.

[wyatt_h_knott@vermont.masto.host]

@gimulnautti @mttaggart Well, in this particiular case I think what we've shown is that capitalism is willing to lie and has no morals, but jumping straight to murder isn't necessarily uncalled for. Let's ask ourselves why they call it capital punishment.

[humanhorseshoes@mastodon.world]

@mttaggart Don't be evil. Be Evil.

[computerhac@mastodon.social]

@mttaggart

[max@gruene.social]

@mttaggart They are a public benefit corporation in a state (Delaware) where they aren't forced to actually do anything to benefit the public. There never was reason to trust them. https://www.wheresyoured.at/premium-the-haters-guide-to-anthropic/

[blobster@infosec.exchange]

@mttaggart These are such nice people. I'd love to share a cup of tea with them.

The new version of the policy (...) promises to “delay” Anthropic's AI development if leaders both consider Anthropic to be leader of the AI race and think the risks of catastrophe to be significant.

(...)

The arrival of powerful new models meant that, in 2025, Anthropic announced it could not rule out the possibility of these models facilitating a bio-terrorist attack. But while they couldn't rule it out (...)

[tartley@fosstodon.org]

@NegativeK @mttaggart right, but if someone getting fired, or even just promoted sideways, can result in a policy reversal, then that means *all* corporate promises are worthless right from day one. It doesn't matter whether some individual in the company *meant it*. It's systemically impossible for the company as a whole to stand by its word.

[scott@ruby.social]

@codinghorror @mttaggart "That's a nice company you've got there. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it. Can you just change this one thing?" https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-hegseth-dario

[ricci@discuss.systems]

@rachel @mttaggart now they're all "we can be evil, it's fine, what are you going to do about it at this point"

[nopatience@swecyb.com]

@mttaggart They want in on the Hegseth DoW action.t