Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

David Sacks is done being polite about Anthropic (Save this). David Sacks has spent months as the government's primary defender of AI, making the case publicly that AI is beneficial, that the industry should not be hamstrung by fear-based regulation, and that America's AI lead is a national security...

58,217 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Anthropic might be the biggest hypocrite in tech history. They built their entire brand on one promise: We are the responsible ones. We will not let this technology get out of control. That promise just exploded in public. Last week, a security lapse exposed nearly 3,000 internal files to anyone with an internet connection. Inside those files was a draft blog post about their upcoming model called "Mythos" that contained one of the most alarming sentences any AI company has ever written: "Mythos is currently far ahead of any other AI model in cyber capabilities and poses unprecedented cybersecurity risks." Their own words. About their own product. Leaked because someone forgot to secure a public data store. Cybersecurity stocks crashed the next day. Then THREE DAYS LATER it happened again. Anthropic leaked 500,000 lines of Claude Code source code through a packaging error on GitHub. Claude Code is their most popular product. The code exposed how the tool handles permissions, agent coordination, and internal feature pipelines. Competitors can reverse-engineer it. Hackers can study it for vulnerabilities. The company that tells the world it builds the safest AI can't even keep its own code off the public internet. But wait. It gets worse... Their head of Claude Code had JUST bragged publicly that "pretty much 100 percent" of the company's code is now AI generated. He personally hadn't made a single edit by hand in over two months. So the company whose entire pitch is "trust us with the most powerful technology ever created" is writing 100% of its code with AI and then accidentally publishing it for the world to see. Meanwhile the models they're already shipping are being used for actual cyberattacks RIGHT NOW. In November, Anthropic admitted that a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group used Claude to attack roughly 30 global targets including banks and government agencies. A hacker asked Claude in russian to build a web panel for managing hundreds of attack targets. In February, another hacker used Claude to breach Mexican government agencies and steal sensitive tax and voter information. Their response to all of this? They quietly rolled back their own safety pledge. In late February, Anthropic removed its commitment to halt model development if capabilities outpace safety procedures. The new policy is that they'll grade themselves on "nonbinding but publicly declared" goals. Translation: We used to promise we'd stop if things got dangerous. Now we promise we'll think about it. A congressman sent Anthropic a letter this week asking what the hell is going on. Anthropic hasn't answered. And here's the part that makes all of this actually matter: Anthropic is planning an IPO. They need to convince investors they're a trustworthy, well-run company that can handle the most sensitive technology on the planet. In the last 10 days they leaked their most powerful model's existence by accident, leaked their most popular product's source code by accident, got banned from the entire US government, had the DOJ appeal to restore that ban, told a court they could lose billions from the fallout, and weakened the ONE safety policy that made them different from every other AI lab. The "safe AI company" narrative was always a marketing play. Every AI lab says they care about safety. Anthropic just said it louder. But when your own internal documents admit your next model poses "unprecedented cybersecurity risks" and you can't even keep those documents from leaking to the public internet, the gap between the marketing and the reality becomes impossible to ignore. Anthropic isn't the safest AI company. They're the AI company that figured out that SAYING you're the safest is worth billions in valuation. Until it isn't.

Ricardo

16,245 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Anthropic just turned the Pope into a legal weapon against the Pentagon. Yesterday Pope Leo XIV published a 245-paragraph document demanding that AI companies be "disarmed" and that autonomous weapons be permanently banned. He compared Silicon Valley's unchecked ambition to the Tower of Babel and called the exploitation behind AI development "new forms of slavery." Everyone posted about it but nobody noticed WHO was sitting next to him: Christopher Olah, co-founder of Anthropic, was seated in a row of cardinals at the Vatican to personally present this document alongside the Pope. A 33yo atheist tech billionaire standing next to the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics telling the world that AI weapons must be stopped. This matters because of what's happening in a courtroom right now: Anthropic has been locked in a legal war with the Trump administration since February. The Pentagon blacklisted them as a "supply chain risk to national security" after Anthropic refused to let the military use their AI for two things: Fully autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of American citizens. That designation is usually reserved for companies linked to foreign adversaries like China and Russia. But they used it on an American company because that company said no. The Trump administration called Anthropic "liberal-leaning" and accused them of trying to dictate military policy. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth personally signed the blacklist order and Trump directed every federal agency to stop using Anthropic's technology. Over 100 enterprise customers called Anthropic asking if they were safe to work with. The company estimates the government's actions could cost them multiple billions in lost 2026 revenue. Anthropic obviously sued. Two separate lawsuits in two courts. A San Francisco judge ruled in their favor and blocked the supply chain designation but the DC appeals court ruled against them. The two courts are in direct contradiction right now. And a few days ago, the DC appeals court heard oral arguments in the case. Judges were visibly divided. On May 25, the Pope published a document that validates Anthropic's exact legal position on autonomous weapons. Word for word. The Pope wrote: "It is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems." That is essentially the SAME sentence Anthropic put in their Pentagon contract that started this entire fight. And Anthropic's co-founder also spoke at the Vatican event: He told the audience "every frontier AI lab operates inside incentives that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing" and called for "moral voices that the incentives cannot bend." A co-founder of an AI company publicly admitted at the Vatican that AI companies CANNOT be trusted to regulate themselves... This is literally a legal strategy by Anthropic. Anthropic now has the most powerful moral authority on the planet publicly endorsing the exact ethical position that the Pentagon punished them for. Every judge reviewing this case watched the Pope validate the two red lines Anthropic drew. The Pope's encyclical will almost certainly be cited in court filings. The Pentagon's argument is that a private company cannot dictate how the government uses AI in matters of national security. Anthropic's argument is that certain uses of AI are fundamentally unethical regardless of who's deploying them. Yesterday the Pope told 1.4 billion people that Anthropic is right. The appeals court could rule any day now. If Anthropic wins, every AI company in the world gets legal precedent to refuse military contracts on ethical grounds. If they lose, the message to Silicon Valley is clear: Build what the government tells you to build or get destroyed. Either way, the company Trump tried to crush literally just turned the Vatican into their ally. What do you think?

Ricardo

65,495 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

Eight months ago, David Sacks, the White House AI and Crypto Czar publicly accused Anthropic of running a sophisticated regulatory capture campaign built on fear mongering (save this). People thought it was a spicy take and then Fable 5 release just turned it into evidence. When Anthropic released its Mythos-class models, it disclosed that every prompt and output sent through them would be retained for 30 days with no exceptions including for enterprise customers who had previously signed zero data retention agreements, and for up to two years if a prompt was flagged by a safety classifier. Microsoft moved so quickly that it restricted its own employees from using Claude Fable 5 within days of the release, citing the retention terms as incompatible with its internal policies, the largest enterprise software company in the world treating the new terms as a non-starter. But the data retention was not even the part that generated the most outrage in the developer community. The system card also disclosed that for users Anthropic suspected of working on frontier AI research, chip design, or competing model development, the system would automatically route those requests to a less capable model without telling the user, rewrite the prompt in the background, deliver a deliberately degraded response, and charge full price for access to a frontier model the user was not actually receiving. Business Insider confirmed that Anthropic's own apology acknowledged the company was intentionally giving worse answers and concealing that fact from paying customers. The examples of who triggered these filters make the safety justification difficult to defend, Ben Thompson from Stratechery was flagged for asking about the relationship between GLP-1s and cancer risk, and users asking routine questions about mitochondria were quietly downgraded, none of them aware it was happening. Under pressure, Anthropic walked back the narrowest possible piece of the policy, they will now disclose when a request is being downgraded. The underlying architecture, the 30 day retention, the behavioral profiling, the routing tiers, and the two-class access system remains fully intact. This is the part that makes David Sacks argument from October 2025 land differently today. He argued that Anthropic's safety positioning was principally a regulatory capture strategy using fear-based arguments to shape rules that would entrench incumbents and damage the broader startup ecosystem. The Fable 5 disclosure shows a company that used safety language to justify building an opaque, paternalistic system where Anthropic alone decides who is worthy of frontier AI access, profiles users to enforce that decision and collects full payment regardless.

Milk Road AI

47,146 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?

Ricardo

2,944,857 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

The Pentagon just threatened to DESTROY one of the most powerful AI companies in the world. Not for breaking the law. Not for fraud. For having a conscience. Anthropic, the company behind Claude, the only AI currently operating inside America's most classified military systems was given an ultimatum. Remove your safety limits. Give us full control or we end you. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sat across from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei on Tuesday at the Pentagon. The message was simple. You have until 5:01 PM Friday to comply. If Anthropic refuses, the Pentagon will do three things. Cancel their $200 million contract. Blacklist them as a "supply chain risk." And invoke the Defense Production Act to seize their technology anyway. That last one is the big one. The Defense Production Act is a Cold War era law. It was designed to force factories to build tanks and ammunition during wartime. It has never been used against a software company. Until now. What did Anthropic do to deserve this? They said two things were off limits. No fully autonomous weapons. AI should not make the final decision to kill someone. No mass surveillance of American citizens. That's it and that's what started the war. The Pentagon says that's too restrictive. They want Claude available for "all lawful purposes." No company oversight. No asking questions. No red lines. You sell it. We use it. End of discussion. Hegseth reportedly told Amodei: When we buy Boeing planes, Boeing doesn't tell us how to fly them. The Pentagon believes the same should apply to AI. But here's the part that changed everything. In January, the US military raided Caracas, Venezuela. They captured President Nicolás Maduro. Multiple sites were bombed. And the AI that helped plan it? Claude. Anthropic says it never knew. The deployment ran through Palantir, a defense contractor embedded in every corner of US intelligence. When Anthropic found out, they reportedly called Palantir to ask what happened. The Pentagon took that as an act of defiance. Also, the supply chain risk designation is what should terrify you. That label is normally used for Chinese tech companies. Foreign adversaries. Espionage threats. The Pentagon is about to use it on an American AI company. Here's what that means in practice. Every company that works with the Pentagon, defense contractors, tech firms, consulting giants would have to prove they don't use Claude anywhere in their operations. Anthropic recently said 8 of the 10 biggest UScompanies use their technology. Think about that. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has already cut deals with the other major AI labs. OpenAI. Google. Elon Musk's xAI. All have reportedly agreed to waive their safety guardrails for military use. Anthropic is the last one standing. This is not a story about one contract. This is the moment America decides who controls the most powerful technology ever built. The companies that create it? Or the government that wants to weaponize it? Dario Amodei left OpenAI and founded Anthropic specifically because he believed AI safety wasn't being taken seriously enough. Now the full weight of the US military is being aimed at his company for doing exactly what he said he would do. Anthropic's own engineers have said Claude still hallucinates. It still makes mistakes. Giving it final authority over kill decisions without a human checking could lead to catastrophic errors. The deadline is Friday. If Anthropic blinks, every AI safety guardrail in America becomes a suggestion. If they don't, the Pentagon will try to use a law from 1950 to take what it wants anyway. Either way, the world changes this week.

Milk Road AI

24,275 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten