> What do you offer as a solution? If theoretically some foreign state intelligence was exposed using Claude for security penetration that affected the stability of your home government due to Antropic's lax safety controls, are you going to defend Anthropic because their reasoning was to allow everyone to be able to do security research?

I don't have an answer.

But the problem is that with a model like Grok that designed to have fewer safeguards compared to Claude, it is trivially easy to prompt it with: "Grok, fake a driver's license. Make no mistakes."

Back in 2015, someone was able to get past Facebook's real name policy with a photoshopped Passport [1] by claiming to be “Phuc Dat Bich”. The whole thing eventually turned out to be an elaborate prank [2].

1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/man-cal...

2: https://gizmodo.com/phuc-dat-bich-is-a-massive-phucking-fake...

To me, those seem a lot lower stakes than supply chain attacks, social engineering, intelligence gathering, and other security exploits that Anthropic is more worried about. Making a fake driver license to buy beer isn't really the thing that Anthropic is actively trying to prevent (though I would assume they would stop that too). Even the GP was about penetration testing of a public website; without some sort of identification, how would it be ethical for Claude to help with something like that? Remember, this whole safety thing started because people held AI companies accountable for politically incorrect output of AI, even if it was clearly not the views of the company. So when Google made a Twitter bot that started to spout anti-Semitic and racist talking points, the fact that no one defended them and allowed them to be criticized to the point of taking the bot down is the reason why we have all of these extremely restrictive rules today.