Anthropic, a company founded by OpenAI exiles worried about the dangers of AI, is loosening its core safety principle in response to competition.
Instead of self-imposed guardrails constraining its development of AI models, Anthropic is adopting a nonbinding safety framework that it says can and will change.
In a blog post Tuesday outlining its new policy, Anthropic said shortcomings in its two-year-old Responsible Scaling Policy could hinder its ability to compete in a rapidly growing AI market.
The announcement is surprising, because Anthropic has described itself as the AI company with a “soul.” It also comes the same week that Anthropic is fighting a significant battle with the Pentagon over AI red lines.
It’s not clear that Anthropic’s change is related to its meeting Tuesday with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who gave Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei an ultimatum to roll back the company’s AI safeguards or risk losing a $200 million Pentagon contract. The Pentagon threatened to put Anthropic on what is effectively a government blacklist.
But the company said in its blog post that its previous safety policy was designed to build industry consensus around mitigating AI risks – guardrails that the industry blew through. Anthropic also noted its safety policy was out of step with Washington’s current anti-regulatory political climate.
Anthropic’s previous policy stipulated that it should pause training more powerful models if their capabilities outstripped the company’s ability to control them and ensure their safety — a measure that’s been removed in the new policy. Anthropic argued that responsible AI developers pausing growth while less careful actors plowed ahead could “result in a world that is less safe.”
As part of the new policy, Anthropic said it will separate its own safety plans from its recommendations for the AI industry.
Anthropic wrote that it had hoped its original safety principles “would encourage other AI companies to introduce similar policies. This is the idea of a ‘race to the top’ (the converse of a ‘race to the bottom’), in which different industry players are incentivized to improve, rather than weaken, their models’ safeguards and their overall safety posture.”
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
283 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
81933 readers
2884 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
here is the only line that matters: “hinder its ability to compete.”
that means “to profit.”
reminder: all corporations, everywhere and in every industry, care first about profit. everything else is about how it relates to or alters profit. literally every word is a goddamned lie, sold to help protect profit.
also their logo looks like a butthole. who does that?!
I think anthropic is in the "ah shit we're dying" startup stage. They're not looking it profit so much as not lose ALL of their shirt in the coming crash. So it pivoted and ditched its morals. Hate them for that.
Don't hate them for being greedy yet: they're not there. Maybe they'll never get there. But they've lived long enough to become the thing they strived to destroy, so that's a milestone.
People are talking about AI killbots and upcoming crash at the same time, and complain about AI slop and vibe coding.
Sorry, but if something is usable for making killbots, there will be no crash. And AI slop proves that for someone it's useful to make slop. And vibe coding proves that someone makes things working in production with those tools. Saying that quality suffers is like saying that cobb houses are not comparable to brick houses and vice versa. Both exist. There are places where technologies related to cobb are still common for construction.
But the most important reason is the first one, if some technique gives you a more convenient and sharper stick to kill someone from another tribe, then that something stays as tribe's cherished wisdom.
That LLMs consume too much resources ... You might have noticed there's a huge space for optimization. They are easy to parallelize, and we are in market capture stage, which means that optimization is not yet a priority. When it becomes a priority, there might happen a moment when all the arguments about operations costing in resources more than they give profit and that being funded by investors are suddenly not true anymore.
I have been converted. Converted back, one might say, there was a time around years 2011-2014.
You clearly don't understand how finance works or don't understand how leveraged these incestuous deals are. It's perfectly possible for AI to make killbots and for an AI economic crash to happen.
They industry needs to make Trillions of dollars to pay off their creditors and to achieve the profit their investors need to make this worthwhile. That only happens if most white collar workers are replaced with AI.
You might want to consult a history book. There are a few recurring themes there, silent leges inter arma and vae victis capture most of them. New weapons might change the intensiveness of wars all around the world, because they help those owning them avoid loss of life whatsoever and those not owning them to pay with lives for dealing damage that doesn't even upset their adversary. Which will bring enormous profits, just not to everyone, only those who conquer. Finance is not all you need for that subject.
On a humanist note, in "drone army against another drone army wars of the future" scenarios loss of life might be so small that pain and death in wars will be reduced to cases of deliberate sadism. Meaning that ... again, there'll be more war.
No, because profits are not only made from replacing existing mechanisms, but also from building new ones.
Specifically, most people don't use computers as really-really meta-machines. They use them as platforms for running specialized applications.
But LLMs, however expensive in resources, change that. They make computers meta-machines for everyone.
And also in some races you want to be further from the rear, not closer to the front. If this technology promises a profound crash in any case (because, suppose, it'll bring about planet-wide totalitarianism), those investments might mean that rush to try to avoid getting eaten completely in the future. Losing less, not gaining more.