That part just sounds like hyperbole at best, conspiracy at worst.

By that logic, anybody who values safety has a god complex? It’s absurd…

I am just quoting the parent article.

"What this degradation represented was both the capability and willingness of Anthropic to silently alter its models to achieve its policy preferences. In other words, Anthropic willfully validated some of its critics’ worst fears in terms of being a supply chain risk."

▲

khalic 6 days ago | parent [-]

Again, hyperbole and assumption of evil intent because… they take precautions? Nice prose doesn’t dispense you from forming a sound hypothesis

	▲	penteract 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		The article makes a coherent argument: a) Anthropic believe that AI is an extinction level risk and that they are the only leading AI lab which takes safety seriously. In combination this puts them in the position of believing that they are the only ones who can save the world, which is reasonable to call a god complex. b) Anthropic are engaging in actions which aquire and consolidate power in the form of control over powerful AI. c) "The history of brilliant people convinced they know what humanity needs is a sordid one, precisely because they have convinced themselves that their intentions are good, justifying actions that very much are not." I'm describing claims from the article and would not word them so strongly myself. But this explicitly does not assume evil intent.