For those interested I previously wrote about how Anthropic and others co-opt safety and defense terminology to take over the arbitration of risk determinations, thus subverting democratic processes
arxiv.org/abs/2504.15088
Palantir's manifesto is not new for us who have been critical of them for years. But a reminder that Anthropic has a partnership with them, so it's crucial that people understand the politics of Anthropic's unsubstantiated AI claims and their relation to fulfilling the manifesto.
I wrote this skeet as a hypothetical and then 24 hours later 🫠
Why is pro-AI still posturing as anti-AI, and why is the general public still willing to believe the charade?
On @channel4news.bsky.social @heidykhlaaf.bsky.social explains the stakes of Anthropic’s Mythos and its impact on security. We lack the evidence and independent expertise needed to verify the claims around the security tool - especially problematic given the risks posed by LLMs.
shorturl.at/kNtU9
I joined Hari Sreenivasan on CNN International and PBS to discuss the use of AI in warfare and the impacts we're already seeing of this fallible technology being used in Iran, and how it ultimately obscures accountability. Full interview can be found at youtube.com/watch?v=w16f...
I joined Hari Sreenivasan on CNN International and PBS to discuss the use of AI in warfare and the impacts we're already seeing of this fallible technology being used in Iran, and how it ultimately obscures accountability. Full interview can be found at youtube.com/watch?v=w16f...
Not enough people are concerned with how AI companies are getting access to nuclear secrets, which now includes uranium enrichment. This raises serious concerns over whether this may lead to nuclear proliferation, and further entrench power asymmetries.
www.centrusenergy.com/news/centrus...
As @amostoh.bsky.social and I explain in our new report, the military has been ramping up its adoption of AI, while oversight and safeguards have failed to keep up.
But the Pentagon’s dispute with Anthropic has brought a grave threat into focus: using AI to pry into Americans’ private lives 🧵 1/
Decision Support Systems and Autonomous Weapons Systems, where Claude is currently deployed as the former in Maven.
Note how the AI "recommendations" are completely obscured with little to no ability to actually verify or trace their outputs. This is what we mean when we say the distinctions between DSS and AWS are superficial in practice, especially when operators are given seconds to approve.
It was great to join @aljazeera.com's podcast "The Take" to discuss the details of the DoW's use of Claude in Iran, as well as the stand-off between DoW and Anthropic that was largely safety theatre.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=skyI...
In this Tech Policy piece, I criticize how framings of Anthropic’s & OpenAI’s negotiations with the US’s DoW overindex on myopic interpretations of human oversight, papering over what should be the real target of our scrutiny: that generative AI algorithms are a flawed and inaccurate technology.
Exactly.
It’s egregious for the WaPo to describe speed as the advantage against Iran w/ Claude. When these systems are incredibly inaccurate, they may as well be enabling indiscriminate targeting (e.g. schools), which isn’t the strategic win they’re framing it as.
www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...
Was happy to speak to Vox on OpenAI's alleged AWS guardrails. Besides current guardrails being trivial to bypass, they can't enforce human oversight over the outputs of an AI algorithm. It's an operational matter not a technical one, and thus infeasible by any guardrails.
www.vox.com/future-perfe...
![Using foundation models in national security contexts may introduce unique concerns threatening human rights. For example, a government’s ability to train models on citizens’ data obtained through commercial data brokers that would otherwise need a warrant, court order, or subpoena to obtain may
allow governments to further exercise coercive powers that are automated through AI decision-making [6].
Such use may subvert due process, exacerbated when inaccurate outputs inflict unjust harms on civilians.
Appropriate interventions may include the extension of data minimization principles to include purpose
limitations on the collection, processing, and transfer of personal data to third parties for intelligence
purposes.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:uvsuoi63hmxbr35fmozsghpc/bafkreidimyup4jtvkon4ol6zy64aholhnvcc3tnba2gymopmqmzkevaxxi)
Using foundation models in national security contexts may introduce unique concerns threatening human rights. For example, a government’s ability to train models on citizens’ data obtained through commercial data brokers that would otherwise need a warrant, court order, or subpoena to obtain may allow governments to further exercise coercive powers that are automated through AI decision-making [6]. Such use may subvert due process, exacerbated when inaccurate outputs inflict unjust harms on civilians. Appropriate interventions may include the extension of data minimization principles to include purpose limitations on the collection, processing, and transfer of personal data to third parties for intelligence purposes.
The Atlantic notes how the Pentagon wants to "analyze bulk data collected from Americans." From our "Mind the Gap" paper 2024, a snippet I have come back to what seems like dozens of time at this point.
www.theatlantic.com/technology/2...
The Anthropic-U.S. DoD public dispute continues. We have unpacked the latest updates & the safety, legal & ethical concerns in our @opiniojuris.bsky.social article
@jessicadorsey.bsky.social @elkeschwarz.bsky.social @profbode.bsky.social @ncrenic.bsky.social
opiniojuris.org/2026/03/02/i...
This account includes an eyewitness.
Also: “At least 85 people, almost all of them young girls, have been killed in an air strike on a primary school in southern Iran, the Iranian judiciary said.”
In case you’re just waking up, the U.S. has teamed up with Israel overnight to start an illegal war of regime change, apparently on a presidential whim with no involvement of Congress, and they are already committing horrific atrocities.
I consider this a loss rather than a win, as just a few years ago the redline was any military use, now it’s the most extreme use case of LAWS. AI companies have successfully moved safety thresholds without effective internal pushback.
www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/t...
I have to give Anthropic credit for recognizing that deploying unreliable AI in AWS is not strategic for the future of AI. But there's a very fine line between DSS and AWS in practice due to automation bias, if they don't believe it's reliable for the latter, it's not reliable for the former either.
Some real cognitive dissonance happening with takes saying "but Anthropic HAD to drop their safety measures, they're the good guys you see!" Anyway from our paper last year:
If flawed and inaccurate LLMs are instrumented in AWS by replacing humans for decision making, then "wars" may as well be indiscriminate lethal campaigns. Anthropic's position also isn't a moral high ground given their AI-DSS uses w/ Palantir, where automation bias may lead to similar outcomes.
There's a constant AI-washing of terms so these companies can claim they're solving a problem that doesn't exist with AI. Static analysis/formal methods also put forward suggestions, have they even used these tools?
Claude Code may also generate up to 90% insecure code (arxiv.org/pdf/2512.03262).
As a formal methods PhD, it's embarrassing for Anthropic to incorrectly describe static analysis in their Claude Code Security announcement. Security and formal methods engineers already have data "reasoning" tools, this isn't the bottleneck, false positives, which LLMs absolutely have, is.
