Anthropic Abandons Key AI Safety Pledge Amid Escalating Pentagon Dispute Over Military Use
Washington, DC – In a dramatic shift that has ignited debates over AI ethics and national security, Anthropic, the AI safety-focused startup behind the Claude chatbot, has quietly dropped a cornerstone of its safety policy just as tensions with the Pentagon reach a boiling point.
The company released version 3.0 of its Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP) on Tuesday, eliminating a long-standing commitment to halt training or deployment of new AI models unless absolute safety guarantees could be assured in advance.[1][2][3] This change coincides with a high-stakes meeting between Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon, where the Department of Defense (DoD) reportedly pressed the firm to relax restrictions on military applications of its technology.[1][4]
A Policy Pivot Under Pressure
Anthropic’s original RSP, introduced in 2023, positioned the company as a cautious outlier in the cutthroat AI race. It included “hard tripwires” – firm red lines mandating pauses in scaling if safety measures lagged behind capabilities, particularly at higher risk levels like ASL-4, akin to biosecurity protocols for handling pathogens such as Ebola.[2][3][4] The policy was born from founders’ disillusionment at OpenAI, with Amodei once invoking Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben: “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Now, those guarantees are gone. The updated RSP replaces them with relative commitments: regular public “Risk Reports” every three to six months, “Frontier Safety Roadmaps” outlining future mitigation goals, and promises to match or exceed competitors’ safety efforts.[1][3][7] Anthropic argues this maintains incentives for safety innovation while addressing a “collective action problem” – if one firm pauses while rivals charge ahead, weaker safeguards could dominate, eroding global safety.[4][5]
“If one AI developer paused development to implement safety measures while others moved forward training and deploying AI systems without strong mitigations, that could result in a world that is less safe,” the RSP states.[4]
The timing has fueled speculation of Pentagon influence. Sources describe the DoD meeting as an ultimatum: ease military-use restrictions or risk restrictive measures, with one outlet quipping, “All your bots are belong to US if you don’t play ball.”[1] Anthropic has resisted sharing its most advanced models with the military, citing risks of misuse in autonomous weapons or other sensitive applications.
Industry Race Trumps Safety Ideals?
Anthropic attributes the shift to fierce competition from OpenAI, Microsoft, and others, coupled with a U.S. policy environment prioritizing economic growth over regulation.[1][2][5] “AI competitiveness and economic growth have become the driving force,” the company lamented, noting that safety advocacy has been sidelined.[1] A spokesperson insisted the new RSP is “the strongest to date on public accountability and transparency,” emphasizing its evolution as a “living document.”[2]
Critics see a troubling concession. Chris Painter, policy director at METR – a nonprofit evaluating AI risks – called it a “bearish signal” for catastrophe preparedness. “Anthropic believes it needs to shift into triage mode… because methods to assess and mitigate risk are not keeping up,” he told TIME after reviewing a draft.[3][4] AI safety advocates like Sarah Myers West of the AI Now Institute warn that without enforceable standards, firms may build ever-riskier models unchecked.[5]
| Old Policy (Pre-v3.0) | New Policy (v3.0) |
|---|---|
| Hard stop on training/deploying models without pre-guaranteed safety mitigations. | Relative commitments; delay only if Anthropic leads race and risks are catastrophic. |
| Absolute red lines at ASL-4+ risk levels. | Public Risk Reports and Frontier Safety Roadmaps; match competitor safety. |
Broader Implications for AI Governance
The move underscores a maturing – or capitulating – AI industry. Once hailed for ethical rigor, Anthropic now admits unilateral safety pledges can’t stem a race to the bottom.[5] Tech analyst Brent Thill of Jefferies noted mounting pressure: “AI is going from consumer-based to enterprise… The race is on.”[5]
Georgetown’s Owen Daniels highlighted Anthropic’s origins as a “safer alternative” to OpenAI, but federal inaction has forced adaptation.[5] The company still safeguards top models at ASL-3, protecting against chemical/biological weapon aid, per its February 22 roadmap.[6]
Yet experts fear eroded trust. As capabilities surge – with models now aiding technical experts in catastrophic scenarios – the absence of binding commitments raises alarms.[6] Anthropic pledges ongoing government engagement for evidence-based safety tied to national security and competitiveness, but concedes it’s a “long-term project.”[1][2]
Pentagon’s Shadow Looms Large
The DoD clash amplifies stakes. While details remain classified, reports suggest pressure for AI in defense applications, from intelligence to logistics. Anthropic’s flexibility may signal compromise, but at what cost to its safety-first identity?[1][8]
As AI frontiers expand, this saga spotlights a core tension: Can private firms self-regulate amid geopolitical arms races, or will safety yield to supremacy? With RSP v3.0, Anthropic bets on transparency over tripwires – a gamble with global ramifications.
(Word count: 1028)