> As I understand it cane down to one point: Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.

This is false. Anthropic wanted assurance that its technology would not be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance.

▲

tcdent 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> [Anthropic] would not permit its technology to power fully autonomous weapons without human oversight over targeting and firing decisions. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the Pentagon should have unrestricted access to AI systems for “any lawful purpose” and that a private contractor should not be permitted to dictate how the military can use its technology.

It's about them maintaining an interpretation of law at all.

Simpletons read that as: "The DOW wants to kill people with AI."

https://www.pearlcohen.com/anthropic-sues-department-of-defe...

	▲	cubefox 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Simpletons read that as: "The DOW wants to kill people with AI." The DoW actually used AI in the Iran war, which led to them attacking a school and killing more than a hundred childrem. That's exactly what Anthropic wanted them to prevent. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-iran-school-attack/
	▲	simianwords 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		well if you were Anthropic and you didn't want the government using your technology in these ways, how would you phrase it? What else would you have done?