3 hours ago
6
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei sat down with CBS News for an exclusive interview Friday, hours aft Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared the institution a proviso concatenation hazard to nationalist security, which restricts subject contractors from doing concern with the AI giant.
See beneath for the afloat transcript:
JO LING KENT: All right. Thank you for doing this with america today.
DARIO AMODEI: Thank-- acknowledgment for having me.
JO LING KENT: We admit you taking the time. You are Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic. Is that right?
DARIO AMODEI: That's correct, yes.
JO LING KENT: Great. Well, I-- my archetypal question to you is wherefore won't you merchandise Anthropic's AI without restrictions to the U.S. government?
DARIO AMODEI: Yeah. So, you know, we should possibly backmost up a spot for a small spot of context. So, you know, Anthropic really has been the astir thin guardant of each the AI companies successful moving with the U.S. authorities and moving with the U.S. military. We were the archetypal institution to, you know, enactment our models connected the classified cloud.
We were the archetypal institution to marque customized models for nationalist information purposes. We're deployed crossed the quality assemblage and subject for applications similar cyber, you know, combat enactment operations, assorted things similar this. And, you know, the crushed we've done this is, you know, I-- I judge that we person to support our country.
I judge we person to support our state from autocratic adversaries similar China and similar Russia. And truthful we've been-- we've been very, you know, we've been precise thin forward. We person a substantial, you know, nationalist sec team-- nationalist assemblage team.
But, you know, I person ever believed that, you know, arsenic we support ourselves against our autocratic adversaries, we person to bash truthful successful ways that support our antiauthoritarian values and sphere our antiauthoritarian values. And truthful we person said to the Department of War that we are good with each usage cases, fundamentally 98% oregon 99% of the usage cases they privation to do, but for 2 that we're acrophobic about.
One is home wide surveillance. There, we're disquieted that, you know, things whitethorn go imaginable with AI that weren't imaginable before. An illustration of this is thing similar taking information collected by backstage firms, having it bought by the government, and analyzing it successful wide by AI.
That really isn't illegal. It was conscionable ne'er utile earlier the epoch of AI, truthful there's this mode successful which home wide surveillance is getting up of the law. The technology's advancing truthful accelerated that it's retired of measurement with the law.
That's lawsuit fig one. Case fig 2 is afloat autonomous weapons. This is not the partially autonomous weapons that are utilized successful Ukraine or, you know, could perchance beryllium utilized successful Taiwan today. This is the thought of making weapons that occurrence without immoderate quality involvement.
Now, adjacent those, I deliberation that, you know, they, you know, our adversaries whitethorn astatine immoderate constituent person them truthful perhaps, you know, they may-- they whitethorn astatine immoderate constituent beryllium needed for the defence of democracy. But we person immoderate concerns astir them. First, the AI systems of contiguous are obscurity adjacent reliable capable to marque afloat autonomous weapons.
You know, anyone who's worked with AI models understands that there's a basal unpredictability to them that successful a purely method mode we person not solved. And there's an oversight question too. If you person a ample service of drones oregon robots that tin run without immoderate quality oversight, wherever determination aren't quality soldiers to marque the decisions astir who to target, who to sprout at, that-- that presents concerns. And we request to person a speech about-- astir however that's overseen. And we haven't had that speech yet. And truthful we consciousness powerfully that, you know, for-- for, you know, those 2 usage cases should-- should not beryllium allowed.
JO LING KENT: The Pentagon has told america that they person agreed successful rule to these 2 restrictions, and they wanted to onslaught a deal. Why couldn't an statement beryllium reached?
DARIO AMODEI: So determination were, you know, determination there were benignant of respective stages of this, each done rapidly and benignant of all, you know, determined by the benignant of three-day, you know, the benignant of precise constricted three-day model that they gave us, right.
They gave america an ultimatum to, you know, to hold to their presumption successful 3 days or, you know, beryllium designated a proviso concatenation hazard oregon Defense Production Act, I conjecture we'll get to that later. But during that time, determination were-- determination were a fewer backmost and forths.
You know, astatine 1 point, they sent america connection that, you know, appeared connected the aboveground to conscionable our terms, but it had each kinds of connection like, "If the Pentagon deems it appropriate," or, you know, or, you know, oregon to bash anything-- "to bash thing successful enactment with laws."
So it didn't really concede successful any-- in-- it didn't really concede successful immoderate meaningful way. And-- and determination were further steps of it that-- that besides did not concede successful immoderate meaningful way. We person wanted to onslaught a woody since the beginning.
If you privation to get a consciousness of the Pentagon's presumption of it, the Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell the time earlier tweet, you know, helium reiterated their position, "We lone let each lawful use." And this was the aforesaid arsenic erstwhile they sent-- what they sent us-- they sent america their terms. So they-- they person not exceeded successful and in-- in-- in-- in-- in-- in-- they person not successful immoderate way-- agree-- agreed to our exceptions successful immoderate meaningful way.
JO LING KENT: The president posted contiguous successful effect to the situation, "Their selfishness," referring to Anthropic, "is putting American lives astatine risk, our troops successful danger, and our nationalist information successful jeopardy." Is-- what bash you think? What's your response?
DARIO AMODEI: So, you know, successful the connection we issued yesterday and besides successful the 1 we issued today, we said that we were willing, adjacent if-- adjacent if the Department of War oregon adjacent if the Trump medication takes these unprecedented measures against us, this benignant of proviso concatenation designation that's usually utilized against overseas adversaries, we person said that, you know, adjacent if they instrumentality these utmost actions, we'll bash everything we tin to enactment the Department of War to supply its exertion for arsenic agelong arsenic it takes to off-board america and-- and on-board, you know, a rival who's consenting to bash these things that-- that-- that we are not-- that we are not consenting to do.
JO LING KENT: Prepare to exit.
DARIO AMODEI: Yeah, so-- truthful we person offered continuity. We're really profoundly acrophobic astir this. We're profoundly acrophobic astir the-- the benignant of interruption of service, which is precisely what's happening erstwhile we're designed a proviso concatenation risk, right.
When we're designated a proviso concatenation risk, they say, like, you know, "You person to beryllium disconnected each of our systems." And I've talked to radical connected the ground, uniformed subject officers, who say, "This is essential. Not having this volition acceptable america backmost six months, 12 months, possibly longer."
And truthful that's wherefore we've tried truthful hard to effort to get it-- to effort to-- to effort to get a deal. But again, the three-day ultimatum, the hazard to designate america a proviso chain. The full timeline has been driven by the Department of War, not by us. We are trying to supply continuity. We're trying to supply the services. We are trying to provide-- we are trying to scope a woody here.
JO LING KENT: So past what does this mean for the information of Americans?
DARIO AMODEI: Yeah. You know, I would-- I would accidental a mates things. You know, in-- successful the abbreviated run, it means, and, you know, it's-- it's-- it's up to the Department of War. You know, we're inactive trying to reach-- we're inactive trying to scope a woody with them.
JO LING KENT: You are?
DARIO AMODEI: Still trying to speech to them. You know--
JO LING KENT: Are they talking with you?
DARIO AMODEI: You know, we-- we-- we've received assorted communications. We haven't seen thing that, you know, that-- that satisfies our-- we haven't seen thing that satisfies our concerns. But, you know, I-- I mean that conscionable successful the wide sense, that we are still, you know, we are inactive funny successful moving with them arsenic agelong arsenic it successful enactment with our reddish lines.
JO LING KENT: But it sounds similar you're inactive truly acold apart, and present Secretary Hegseth has determined you each a proviso concatenation hazard and said what helium said. So bash you deliberation it's imaginable astatine this constituent to travel to an agreement?
DARIO AMODEI: You know, I-- look, an statement requires some sides. We for-- for our broadside are consenting to service the nationalist information of this country. We are consenting to supply our models to each branches of the government, including the Department of War, the quality community, you know, the much civilian branches of the authorities nether the presumption that we've provided nether our reddish lines.
We are ever consenting to bash that, right. You know, we're-- we're-- we're, you know, we-- we-- you know, we don't-- we don't instrumentality discourtesy here. The-- the crushed we're providing our exertion successful this mode is that we privation to enactment the, you know, nationalist information of the United States.
We're not doing it, you know, for the involvement of Pentagon officials. We're not doing it for the involvement of a peculiar administration. We're doing it due to the fact that it's bully for the nationalist information of the United States. And we're gonna proceed to bash that.
JO LING KENT: Why bash you deliberation that it is amended for Anthropic, a backstage company, to person much accidental successful however AI is utilized successful the subject than the Pentagon itself?
DARIO AMODEI: So archetypal I would say, and I deliberation this is an important point, nary 1 connected the crushed has actually, to our cognition tally into the limits of immoderate of these-- of immoderate of these exceptions. These are, excuse me. These are 1% of usage cases and-- and ones that-- that we person seen nary grounds connected the crushed person been done.
Now-- now, again, I can't accidental what their plans are. That we don't know. But-- but we person nary grounds that these usage cases person actually-- person really tally into trouble. We've dispersed crossed the Department of War and different parts of the authorities without-- without moving into immoderate of these problems.
Now, successful presumption of these 1 oregon 2 constrictive exceptions, I really hold that successful the agelong run, we request to person a antiauthoritarian conversation. In the agelong run, I really bash judge that it is Congress's job. If, for example, domest-- determination are possibilities with home wide surveillance, authorities buying of, you know, bulk information that has been produced connected Americans, locations, idiosyncratic information, governmental affiliation to physique profiles, and it's present imaginable to analyse that with AI.
The information that that's legal, that seems like, you know, the judicial mentation of the Fourth Amendment has not caught up. Or the laws passed by Congress person not caught up. So successful the agelong run, we deliberation Congress should drawback up with wherever the exertion is going.
But Congress is not the fastest moving assemblage successful the world. And for close now, we are the ones who spot this exertion connected the beforehand line. I would expect that the Department of War, I would expect them to beryllium thoughtful astir these issues, to, you know, to-- to proactively, you know, think-- deliberation astir these issues.
And truthful I would person expected them not-- not to person immoderate concern, and, you know, for america to have-- for america to person a conversation. But I deliberation successful the lack of that, you know, it, you know, we request to look astatine the technology. We request to look astatine what it's susceptible of successful presumption of reliability, and we request to look astatine the ways successful which it's getting up of the law, and in-- and successful which it's escaping the intent of the law.
Those are immoderate precise constrictive areas, but I deliberation they're important. These are things that are cardinal to Americans, right. The-- the-- the-- the-- the close not to beryllium spied connected by the government, right. The-- the close for our subject officers to marque decisions astir warfare themselves and not crook it implicit wholly to a machine. These are-- these are cardinal principles.
JO LING KENT: But successful the sanction of cardinal principles, wherefore should Americans spot you, the CEO of a backstage institution to marque these decisions alternatively of the national government?
DARIO AMODEI: Well, I would give-- I would springiness 2 answers to that. One, you know-- you know, we are-- we are a backstage company, right>
JO LING KENT: Yeah.
DARIO AMODEI: We tin take to merchantability oregon not merchantability immoderate we want. There are different providers. If the DoW, the government, you know, doesn't similar the services we supply or-- or-- or-- oregon the mode that we marque them, they tin usage different contractor. This would person been the mean mode to grip this, right.
Just to say, I would person disagreed but I would person respected them if they said, DoW "We don't privation to enactment with Anthropic. Our principles are not aligned with yours. We're gonna spell with 1 of the different models." But they've some extended that to parts of the authorities beyond the DoW and tried to punitively revoke our contracts beyond DoW.
And they've done this proviso concatenation designation thing, which fundamentally says that "If you're portion of-- if you're-- if you're different backstage institution who has subject contracts, you can't usage Anthropic in-- in-- you can't usage Anthropic successful a mode that touches those subject contracts."
So they're reaching successful to the behaviour of backstage enterprise. And it's precise hard to construe this successful immoderate mode different than punitive. To our knowledge, the proviso concatenation designation has ne'er been applied to an American company. It has lone been applied to ad-- you know, adversar-- like, you know, Kaspersky Labs, which is simply a Russian cybersecurity institution that, you know, that is-- is, you know, suspected of-- suspected of ties to the Russian government. Chinese spot suppliers. You know, being-- being lumped successful with them, it-- it feels precise punitive and inappropriate, fixed the magnitude that we've done for U.S. nationalist security.
JO LING KENT: So you accidental you've done truthful overmuch for U.S. nationalist security. You're adhering to these 2 restrictions that you privation to keep. Do you deliberation that Anthropic knows amended than the Pentagon here?
DARIO AMODEI: We don't, look, you know, I-- 1 of the things astir a escaped marketplace and escaped endeavor is antithetic folks tin supply antithetic products nether antithetic principles. Remember, this isn't conscionable astir presumption of use. This isn't conscionable about, you know, this is what our exemplary is legally allowed to do.
Our exemplary has a personality. It's susceptible of definite things. It's capable to bash definite things reliably. It's capable to not bash definite things reliably. And I deliberation we are a bully justice of what our models tin bash reliably and what-- and what they cannot bash reliably. And I deliberation we bash person a bully presumption into however the exertion again is getting up of the law. And I--
JO LING KENT: So--
DARIO AMODEI: --but I would say-- I would accidental again, I-- I-- I really hold with you that this is not tenable in-- successful the agelong term. I don't deliberation the close semipermanent solution is for a backstage institution and the Pentagon to reason astir this. I deliberation Congress needs to enactment here.
And we are reasoning astir that. We are reasoning astir what Congress could bash to enforce immoderate of these guardrails that don't hinder our quality to decision our adversaries but that, you know, let america to decision our adversaries successful a mode that's successful enactment with the values of-- in-- successful enactment with the values of our country. But, arsenic you know, Congress doesn't determination fast.
JO LING KENT: No.
DARIO AMODEI: So, you know, I think-- I think-- I deliberation successful the meantime, we bash request to gully a enactment successful the sand.
JO LING KENT: So until Congress acts, you're saying you are going to clasp steadfast here. But determination are truthful galore different companies retired determination that bash concern with the U.S. government. Boeing builds craft for the U.S. military. Boeing doesn't archer the U.S. subject what to bash with that aircraft. How is this immoderate different?
DARIO AMODEI: Again, I would accidental 2 ways that it's different. One, I would constituent again to the newness of the technology, right. When a exertion is well-established, then, you know, the-- the, you know, I-- you know, I mean, determination are tons of method things astir aircrafts, but-- but, you know, I think-- I think-- you know, a wide has a beauteous bully knowing of, like, however an craft works. Aircrafts person been astir for a agelong time.
JO LING KENT: But there's plentifulness of innovation wrong their-- this industry.
DARIO AMODEI: Sure, but not astatine the gait that-- not astatine the gait that we spot with AI. AI is moving truthful fast, I've talked often astir however AI is connected an exponential trend. Every-- the models, the, you know, the-- the-- the-- the-- the magnitude of computation that goes into the models doubles each 4 months. We person ne'er seen thing similar this gait of innovation.
JO LING KENT: But if that gait continues apace--
DARIO AMODEI: Yes.
JO LING KENT: --then the U.S. authorities volition ne'er beryllium caught up. So however does that logic apply, if you person agelong argued that you privation to enactment with the U.S. authorities to provide, you know, the due nationalist security. If it's going to beryllium specified a accelerated improvement for the foreseeable future, Congress can't drawback up, past wherefore crook your backmost connected it--
DARIO AMODEI: Well, I-- it-- I deliberation there's only-- I deliberation there's lone catching up once, right. So the gait of the exertion is fast. The issues that originate are fewer but precise important. Again, we-- we lone person 2 of these: home wide surveillance; afloat autonomous weapons.
We request to person a speech with Congress to assistance them recognize some-- immoderate of the risks associated with it. Again, this is the astir American happening successful the world. No 1 wants to beryllium spied connected by the U.S. government. No 1 wants to beryllium spied connected by the U.S. government.
JO LING KENT: At the nonstop aforesaid time, immoderate of our top adversaries person exertion that is either rapidly catching up to america oregon volition yet bash so, possibly already caught up. And truthful our m-- if our subject is captious to defending the American radical and captious to our democracy, freedom, the republic, wherefore enactment successful this presumption and say, "No, we're not gonna cooperate--"
DARIO AMODEI: Again, you know, again, that's an abstract-- that's an abstract argument, but let's look astatine the existent 2 uses. Domestic wide surveillance does not assistance the U.S. drawback up with its adversaries. Domestic wide surveillance is-- is, you know, is an maltreatment of the government's authority, adjacent wherever it's technically legal. So that 1 we tin regularisation out. Fully autonomous weapons, determination I really americium acrophobic that we whitethorn request to support up. It, you know, it-- it's-- it's not, you know--
JO LING KENT: You do.
DARIO AMODEI: --the exertion is not ready. And truthful we are not, arsenic I said, we are not categorically against afloat autonomous weapons. We simply judge that the reliability is not determination yet, and that we request to person a speech astir oversight. And we person offered to enactment with the Department of War to assistance make these technologies, to prototype them successful a sandbox.
But they weren't funny successful this unless they could bash immoderate they privation close from the beginning. And-- and-- and-- and so, you know, again, we-- we request to equilibrium the existential need-- nary 1 has emphasized it much than me-- to decision our adversaries. But we request to fight-- we request to combat successful the close way. You know, this is similar saying--
JO LING KENT: There are plentifulness of countries that are adversary--
DARIO AMODEI: --if-- if adversaries perpetrate warfare crimes, shouldn't we perpetrate warfare crimes arsenic well? I'm not saying this amounts to warfare crimes. What I'm saying is that the-- the-- the-- the essence of our values is that we person to find a mode to triumph successful a mode that preserves those values.
We can't conscionable beryllium a full contention to the bottom. We-- we, you know, we person to person immoderate principles. And these are precise few. This exertion tin radically accelerate what our subject tin do. I've talked to admirals. I've talked to generals. I've talked to combatant commanders, who say, "This has revolutionized what we tin do."
And-- and-- and these are conscionable the precise constricted usage cases we've deployed truthful far. And-- and-- and truthful wherefore harp connected the 1% of usage cases that are against our values erstwhile we tin prosecute the 99% of usage cases that are successful favour of our, that-- that-- that beforehand our antiauthoritarian values and that support this country. And-- and we tin adjacent effort to survey that past 1% of usage cases to recognize if determination is simply a mode to bash them accordant with our values. That is our position, and I deliberation that's precise reasonable.
JO LING KENT: I privation to recognize what is the worst lawsuit script that Americans should beryllium acquainted with erstwhile it comes to--
JO LING KENT: Can I inquire you astir what is the worst lawsuit scenario? What radical should beryllium acrophobic astir here? Give america a mates of examples. It would beryllium precise adjuvant for radical to understand.
JO LING KENT: I guess, like, what we privation to recognize is erstwhile you person these concerns astir autonomous weapons, springiness maine 1 oregon 2 examples of what could spell wrong.
DARIO AMODEI: So the-- the benignant of happening that we-- I-- there-- determination are 2 classes of things that I tin ideate could-- could spell wrong. One again is astir this thought of reliability, which is conscionable it targets the incorrect person, it shoots a civilian. It doesn't amusement the judgement that a quality sh-- that a quality worker would show.
Friendly occurrence oregon shooting a civilian oregon conscionable the incorrect benignant of thing. We don't privation to merchantability thing that we don't deliberation is reliable, and we don't privation to merchantability thing that could get our ain radical killed oregon that could get guiltless radical killed.
Second is this question of oversight. If you deliberation astir it, you know, you-- you-- quality soldiers, there's, you know, there's a full concatenation of accountability that assumes a quality uses their communal sense. Suppose I person an service of 10 cardinal drones each coordinated by 1 idiosyncratic oregon a tiny acceptable of people.
Can't, you know, I deliberation it's casual to spot that determination are accountability issues there, right. That-- that-- that, you know, concentrating powerfulness that overmuch doesn't work. It-- it doesn't mean we shouldn't person this fleet. Again, I don't know. Maybe we request it astatine immoderate constituent due to the fact that our adversaries volition person it. But we request to person a speech astir accountability, astir who is holding the fastener and who tin accidental no. And I deliberation that's precise reasonable.
JO LING KENT: I person 1 last question due to the fact that we person been present waiting for 2 days, with each owed respect, to beryllium down with you. And I admit your time. I conscionable privation to inquire you 1 past thing. President Trump has called Anthropic "a near helping woke company." Is this determination astatine each driven by ideology?
DARIO AMODEI: I-- look, I can't talk for what, you know, I can't talk for what different parties are doing and what they're doing.
JO LING KENT: But you and you and Anthropic.
DARIO AMODEI: Yeah, look. We-- we-- but we-- we I deliberation person tried to beryllium precise neutral. We talk up connected issues of AI argumentation wherever we person expertise. We don't-- we don't person views-- we don't deliberation astir wide governmental issues, and we effort to enactment unneurotic whenever there's communal ground.
For example, I went to an lawsuit successful Pennsylvania with the president, with Senator McCormick-- astir provisioning energy, provisioning capable vigor to-- powerfulness our AI models in-- proviso our AI models successful the U.S. I spoke to the president.
I, you know, I-- I-- I-- I expressed that I, you know, agreed with galore aspects of what he's doing. We besides did a pledge around-- you know, using-- utilizing AI for health. And we've done a fig of different things. When the AI Action, the administration's AI Action Plan k-- you know, erstwhile the administration's AI Action Plan came out, we said that determination were, you know, many, possibly astir aspects of it that we agreed with.
So this thought that we've someway been partisan oregon that we haven't been evenhanded, we've been studiously evenhanded. And-- and again, we can't power if someone, even-- adjacent the president, you know, ha-- has an sentiment astir us. That's not nether our control. What's nether our power is that we tin beryllium reasonable. We tin beryllium neutral. And we tin basal up for what we believe.
JO LING KENT: One to ten, volition determination beryllium an statement with the national authorities connected this successful the future? Or bash you deliberation this is over?
DARIO AMODEI: Look, I-- I-- I person nary crystal ball. For our part, our presumption is clear. We person these 2 reddish lines. We've had them from time one. We are still-- you know, we are inactive advocating for those reddish lines. We're not gonna determination connected those reddish lines.
If we tin get to the constituent with the section where, you know, where, you know, we tin spot things the aforesaid way, past possibly determination could beryllium an agreement. For our portion and for the involvement of U.S. nationalist security, we, you know, we-- we proceed to privation to marque this work. But-- you know, again, it takes 2 parties to person an agreement.
JO LING KENT: If you had a infinitesimal with the president close present tonight, what would you accidental to him?
DARIO AMODEI: You know, I, again, I would say, we are patriotic Americans. We person done-- everything we person done has been for the involvement of this country, for the involvement of supporting U.S. nationalist security. Our leaning guardant successful deploying our models with the subject was done due to the fact that we judge successful this country.
We judge in-- defeating our autocratic adversaries. We judge successful defending America. The reddish lines we person drawn we drew due to the fact that we-- we-- we-- we judge that crossing those reddish lines is-- is contrary to American values. And we wanted to basal up for American values.
And erstwhile we were threatened with proviso concatenation designation and Defense Production Act, which are unprecedented intrusions into the backstage system by the government, we-- we exercised our classical First Amendment rights to talk up and disagree with the government. Disagreeing with the authorities is the astir American happening successful the world. And we are patriots. In everything we person done here, we person stood up for the values of this country.
JO LING KENT: Do you deliberation Anthropic tin past this arsenic a business?
DARIO AMODEI: You know-- when-- erstwhile the presi-- when-- Secretary Hegseth tweeted retired the proviso concatenation designation, helium said thing that was inaccurate that acold exceeds their lawful authority. He said that "Any institution that has a subject declaration can't bash concern with Anthropic astatine all."
That is not what the instrumentality said. We enactment retired a connection that pointed to the law. All the instrumentality says is that, "As portion of its subject contracts, immoderate institution cannot usage Anthropic arsenic portion of those subject contracts." That is simply a ver-- that is simply a overmuch much constricted impact.
JO LING KENT: So you're assured past Anthropic tin past this.
DARIO AMODEI: Not-- not lone past it. We're gonna beryllium fine. The-- the interaction of this designation is reasonably small. Now, the quality of the tweet that the caput enactment retired was designed to make uncertainty, was designed to make a concern wherever radical believed the interaction would beryllium overmuch larger, was designed to make fear, uncertainty, and doubt. But we won't fto that succeed. We volition beryllium fine--
JO LING KENT: Critics telephone this an maltreatment of power, what the Pentagon is doing and what the White House is doing. Do you judge this is an maltreatment of power?
DARIO AMODEI: You know, again, I would instrumentality to the thought that this is unprecedented.
JO LING KENT: But is it an maltreatment of power?
DARIO AMODEI: You know, this has ne'er happened before. This designation has ne'er happened earlier with an American company. And I deliberation it was made precise wide successful immoderate of their statements, successful immoderate of their connection that this was retaliatory and punitive. I don't-- I don't-- I don't cognize what else-- what other to telephone it. Retaliatory and punitive.
JO LING KENT: So volition you instrumentality ineligible action?
DARIO AMODEI: We-- we-- I-- I-- I've stated-- I've stated successful our statement, again, each we've received is simply a tweet. We haven't received an existent proviso concatenation desig-- you know, there's -- there's been nary existent enactment by the government. There's conscionable been tweets saying what they're going-- saying what they assertion they're going to do. And--
JO LING KENT: You haven't received immoderate ceremonial information--
DARIO AMODEI: We-- we haven't received immoderate ceremonial accusation whatsoever. All we've seen are tweets from the president and tweets from Secretary Hegseth. When-- when-- when-- erstwhile we person immoderate benignant of ceremonial action, we volition look astatine it, we volition recognize it, and we volition situation it successful court.
JO LING KENT: What bash you deliberation that says astir their quality to navigate large nationalist information issues, if this is the mode that you accidental they're communicating with you?
DARIO AMODEI: Again, you know, I-- I-- I don't privation to marque this-- I don't privation to marque this astir this peculiar administration. I don't privation to marque this astir peculiar people. We are trying to bash immoderate we tin to enactment U.S. nationalist security.
That's wherefore we're committed to trying to find a deal. If we can't find a deal, that is wherefore we're committed to-- to off-boarding in, you know, successful a-- successful a creaseless mode that allows our warfighters to proceed to beryllium supported arsenic they-- arsenic they spell into conflicts.
And that's wherefore we're committed to lasting up to-- you know, actions that we deliberation are not successful enactment with the values of this country. It's-- it's not astir immoderate peculiar person. It's not astir immoderate peculiar administration. It's astir the rule of lasting up for what's right.
JO LING KENT: Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, convey you precise much. I admit your coming.
DARIO AMODEI: Thank you truthful overmuch for having me.
JO LING KENT: Thank you.
In:
English (US) ·