I mean, no shit? It's obviously non-sensical for a company to simultaneously be a "security risk" *and* have the DoD begging to use their tech. It's such an obvious contradiction that the only way this wasn't going to get overturned was if Aileen Cannon got the case.
75
Ok-Jury-6161Mar 27, 2026
-26
The documentary Octopus Murders explains everything.
-26
GetsBetterAfterAFewMar 27, 2026
-48
Ai finding more ways to steal our healthcare and all the other public services we don't have. This is propaganda to make Anthropic seem like the victim here.
-48
SirwiredMar 27, 2026
+36
Errr... Anthropic *is* a victim here, and it's not propaganda to say so. It's possible for the company to both be a victim *and* have poorly-supervised tech. They aren't mutually exclusive.
36
OSRSTheRicerMar 27, 2026
+16
Yep, you can hate the company and product but also agree that this was retaliatory and honestly not in humankind best interest
16
raptearerMar 27, 2026
+17
They are the victim though? The Pentagon wanted their tech for military applications, they said no, and then suddenly they're a security risk that no company who engaged directly with the US government can work with? That's textbook retaliation. If this was two people I'd swear they were just reenacting some over the top workplace harassment training video.
As others said, doesn't matter how you feel about the tech, the government should not be retaliating against them
17
rain5151Mar 27, 2026
+6
Go after them for all the ways they’re harming the world? Absolutely
Go after them because they don’t want the government to use their tech for something newly horrifying? Hell no
7 Comments