[TalkingCodeMonk]

The premise here is rather ridiculous, and only entertainable if you don't know about the recent history of the admin declaring Anthropic a supply chain risk because they required the government to agree to ethical clauses that would've been considered unthinkable until recently.

Remember, all AI companies openly claimed to oppose military usage just a few short years ago. Now they all have government contracts that allow the government to use them "lawfully", while also being able to decide that anything they do with them is lawful. Anthropic is the only one who required clauses against killbots and domestic mass surveillance.

Anthropic never asked for arbitrary or opaque shutdowns. They asked for clearly defined regulations to apply equally (which would've helped their market position and advantage, coincidentally I'm sure /s), moreso to reduce their own risk and liability.

[charcircuit]

>because they required the government to agree to ethical clauses that would've been considered unthinkable until recently

This theory doesn't make sense with the context that they happily signed a follow up deal with OpenAI containing the same restrictions.

The more likely theory was that it was because Anthropic wanted to be the ultimate arbiter of what was considered violating.