This week, Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon. Our position has never wavered and will never waver: the Department of War must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic’s models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic. Instead, @AnthropicAI and its CEO @DarioAmodei , have chosen duplicity. Cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of “effective altruism,” they have attempted to strong-arm the United States military into submission - a cowardly act of corporate virtue-signaling that places Silicon Valley ideology above American lives. The Terms of Service of Anthropic’s defective altruism will never outweigh the safety, the readiness, or the lives of American troops on the battlefield. Their true objective is unmistakable: to seize veto power over the operational decisions of the United States military. That is unacceptable. As President Trump stated on Truth Social, the Commander-in-Chief and the American people alone will determine the destiny of our armed forces, not unelected tech executives. Anthropic’s stance is fundamentally incompatible with American principles. Their relationship with the United States Armed Forces and the Federal Government has therefore been permanently altered. In conjunction with the President's directive for the Federal Government to cease all use of Anthropic's technology, I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security. Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. 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 to a better and more patriotic service. America’s warfighters will never be held hostage by the ideological whims of Big Tech. This decision is final.
I had the same thought so I've been playing with it in nanochat. E.g. here's 8 agents (4 claude, 4 codex), with 1 GPU each running nanochat experiments (trying to delete logit softcap without regression). The TLDR is that it doesn't work and it's a mess... but it's still very pretty to look at :) I tried a few setups: 8 independent solo researchers, 1 chief scientist giving work to 8 junior researchers, etc. Each research program is a git branch, each scientist forks it into a feature branch, git worktrees for isolation, simple files for comms, skip Docker/VMs for simplicity atm (I find that instructions are enough to prevent interference). Research org runs in tmux window grids of interactive sessions (like Teams) so that it's pretty to look at, see their individual work, and "take over" if needed, i.e. no -p. But ok the reason it doesn't work so far is that the agents' ideas are just pretty bad out of the box, even at highest intelligence. They don't think carefully though experiment design, they run a bit non-sensical variations, they don't create strong baselines and ablate things properly, they don't carefully control for runtime or flops. (just as an example, an agent yesterday "discovered" that increasing the hidden size of the network improves the validation loss, which is a totally spurious result given that a bigger network will have a lower validation loss in the infinite data regime, but then it also trains for a lot longer, it's not clear why I had to come in to point that out). They are very good at implementing any given well-scoped and described idea but they don't creatively generate them. But the goal is that you are now programming an organization (e.g. a "research org") and its individual agents, so the "source code" is the collection of prompts, skills, tools, etc. and processes that make it up. E.g. a daily standup in the morning is now part of the "org code". And optimizing nanochat pretraining is just one of the many tasks (almost like an eval). Then - given an arbitrary task, how quickly does your research org generate progress on it?
Suppose there’s freedom of religion: everyone can choose what religion to practice. Is there some sense in which this is “undemocratic”? Would it be more “democratic” if the democratically-elected government declared a state religion, and everyone had to follow it? You could, in theory, define “democratic” this way, so that the more areas of life are subjected to the control of a (democratically elected) government, the more democratic your society is. But in that case, the most democratic possible society is totalitarianism1 - a society where the government controls every facet of life, including what religion you practice, who you marry, and what job you work at. In this society there would be no room for human freedom. So either you should avoid defining “democratic” this way, or you should stop assuming that more democratic = better. Otherwise it’s easy to prove that any step towards totalitarianism is good.
Martin Luther King changed society a lot, but not through being democratic and accountable - he didn’t ask permission from the majority of Alabama voters before marching, and he didn’t lodge his complaint with the appropriate state officials and wait for the government to solve it. He just marched. Sure, part of his march was to change voter minds and get new democratically-passed laws2. But part of it was to provoke direct extragovernmental change of people being less racist in their everyday lives. If MLK had been “accountable” to someone, he never would have been able to do what he did. But what he did was what we tell everyone to do: try your best to make a difference and leave the world a better place, according to your own values, without needing permission from the government or the majority of people. The same is true of the original Martin Luther, of Adam Smith and Karl Marx, of George Orwell and Bill Gates, and virtually every important, heroic, or interesting person in history. The only society that doesn’t leave space for the person trying to make the world better as they understand out outside of the existing governmental process is - again - totalitarianism.
We believe this designation would both be legally unsound and set a dangerous precedent for any American company that negotiates with the government. No amount of intimidation or punishment from the Department of War will change our position on mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons. We will challenge any supply chain risk designation in court.
