Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei sat down with CBS Information for an unique interview Friday, hours after Protection Secretary Pete Hegseth declared the corporate a provide chain threat to nationwide safety, which restricts army contractors from doing enterprise with the AI big.
See under for the complete transcript:
JO LING KENT: All proper. Thanks for doing this with us right this moment.
DARIO AMODEI: Thank– thanks for having me.
JO LING KENT: We recognize you taking the time. You might be Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic. Is that proper?
DARIO AMODEI: That is appropriate, sure.
JO LING KENT: Nice. Nicely, I– my first query to you is why will not you launch Anthropic’s AI with out restrictions to the U.S. authorities?
DARIO AMODEI: Yeah. So, you recognize, we must always perhaps again up a bit for somewhat little bit of context. So, you recognize, Anthropic truly has been essentially the most lean ahead of all of the AI corporations in working with the U.S. authorities and dealing with the U.S. army. We had been the primary firm to, you recognize, put our fashions on the categorised cloud.
We had been the primary firm to make customized fashions for nationwide safety functions. We’re deployed throughout the intelligence group and army for purposes like cyber, you recognize, fight help operations, varied issues like this. And, you recognize, the explanation we have executed that is, you recognize, I– I consider that now we have to defend our nation.
I consider now we have to defend our nation from autocratic adversaries like China and like Russia. And so we have been– we have been very, you recognize, we have been very lean ahead. We now have a considerable, you recognize, public sec team– public sector group.
However, you recognize, I’ve all the time believed that, you recognize, as we defend ourselves towards our autocratic adversaries, now we have to take action in ways in which defend our democratic values and protect our democratic values. And so now we have mentioned to the Division of Struggle that we’re okay with all use instances, mainly 98% or 99% of the use instances they need to do, besides for 2 that we’re involved about.
One is home mass surveillance. There, we’re fearful that, you recognize, issues might turn out to be potential with AI that weren’t potential earlier than. An instance of that is one thing like taking information collected by personal companies, having it purchased by the federal government, and analyzing it in mass by AI.
That really is not unlawful. It was simply by no means helpful earlier than the period of AI, so there’s this manner during which home mass surveillance is getting forward of the legislation. The expertise’s advancing so quick that it is out of step with the legislation.
That is case primary. Case quantity two is totally autonomous weapons. This isn’t the partially autonomous weapons which might be utilized in Ukraine or, you recognize, might doubtlessly be utilized in Taiwan right this moment. That is the thought of constructing weapons that fireplace with none human involvement.
Now, even these, I believe that, you recognize, they, you recognize, our adversaries might sooner or later have them so maybe, you recognize, they may– they might sooner or later be wanted for the protection of democracy. However now we have some considerations about them. First, the AI programs of right this moment are nowhere close to dependable sufficient to make totally autonomous weapons.
You understand, anybody who’s labored with AI fashions understands that there is a primary unpredictability to them that in a purely technical method now we have not solved. And there is an oversight query too. In case you have a big military of drones or robots that may function with none human oversight, the place there aren’t human troopers to make the selections about who to focus on, who to shoot at, that– that presents considerations. And we have to have a dialog about– about how that is overseen. And we’ve not had that dialog but. And so we really feel strongly that, you recognize, for– for, you recognize, these two use instances should– shouldn’t be allowed.
JO LING KENT: The Pentagon has advised us that they’ve agreed in precept to those two restrictions, and so they needed to strike a deal. Why could not an settlement be reached?
DARIO AMODEI: So there have been, you recognize, there there have been form of a number of levels of this, all executed rapidly and form of all, you recognize, decided by the form of three-day, you recognize, the form of very restricted three-day window that they gave us, proper.
They gave us an ultimatum to, you recognize, to conform to their phrases in three days or, you recognize, be designated a provide chain threat or Protection Manufacturing Act, I assume we’ll get to that later. However throughout that point, there were– there have been a couple of again and forths.
You understand, at one level, they despatched us language that, you recognize, appeared on the floor to fulfill our phrases, but it surely had all types of language like, “If the Pentagon deems it applicable,” or, you recognize, or, you recognize, or to do anything– “to do something according to legal guidelines.”
So it did not truly concede in any– in– it did not truly concede in any significant method. And– and there have been additional steps of it that– that additionally didn’t concede in any significant method. We now have needed to strike a deal for the reason that starting.
If you wish to get a way of the Pentagon’s place of it, the Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell the day earlier than tweet, you recognize, he reiterated their place, “We solely enable all lawful use.” And this was the identical as after they sent– what they despatched us– they despatched us their phrases. So that they– they haven’t exceeded in and in– in– in– in– in– in– they haven’t in any way– agree– agreed to our exceptions in any significant method.
JO LING KENT: The president posted right this moment in response to the scenario, “Their selfishness,” referring to Anthropic, “is placing American lives in danger, our troops in peril, and our nationwide safety in jeopardy.” Is– what do you assume? What’s your response?
DARIO AMODEI: So, you recognize, within the assertion we issued yesterday and in addition within the one we issued right this moment, we mentioned that we had been prepared, even if– even when the Division of Struggle or even when the Trump administration takes these unprecedented measures towards us, this type of provide chain designation that is usually used towards international adversaries, now we have mentioned that, you recognize, even when they take these excessive actions, we’ll do every thing we will to help the Division of Struggle to offer its expertise for so long as it takes to off-board us and– and on-board, you recognize, a competitor who’s prepared to do this stuff that– that– that we’re not– that we aren’t prepared to do.
JO LING KENT: Put together to exit.
DARIO AMODEI: Yeah, so– so now we have supplied continuity. We’re truly deeply involved about this. We’re deeply involved about the– the form of interruption of service, which is strictly what’s occurring once we’re designed a provide chain threat, proper.
Once we’re designated a provide chain threat, they are saying, like, you recognize, “You need to be off all of our programs.” And I’ve talked to individuals on the bottom, uniformed army officers, who say, “That is important. Not having this may set us again six months, 12 months, perhaps longer.”
And in order that’s why we have tried so exhausting to attempt to get it– to attempt to– to attempt to get a deal. However once more, the three-day ultimatum, the danger to designate us a provide chain. The entire timeline has been pushed by the Division of Struggle, not by us. We are attempting to offer continuity. We’re attempting to offer the companies. We are attempting to provide– we are attempting to succeed in a deal right here.
JO LING KENT: So then what does this imply for the protection of Individuals?
DARIO AMODEI: Yeah. You understand, I might– I might say a pair issues. You understand, in– within the brief run, it means, and, you recognize, it’s– it’s– it is as much as the Division of Struggle. You understand, we’re nonetheless attempting to reach– we’re nonetheless attempting to succeed in a cope with them.
JO LING KENT: You might be?
DARIO AMODEI: Nonetheless attempting to speak to them. You understand–
JO LING KENT: Are they speaking with you?
DARIO AMODEI: You understand, we– we– we have acquired varied communications. We’ve not seen something that, you recognize, that– that satisfies our– we’ve not seen something that satisfies our considerations. However, you recognize, I– I imply that simply within the broad sense, that we’re nonetheless, you recognize, we’re nonetheless involved in working with them so long as it according to our crimson strains.
JO LING KENT: However it sounds such as you’re nonetheless actually far aside, and now Secretary Hegseth has decided you all a provide chain threat and mentioned what he mentioned. So do you assume it is potential at this level to return to an settlement?
DARIO AMODEI: You understand, I– look, an settlement requires each side. We for– for our facet are prepared to serve the nationwide safety of this nation. We’re prepared to offer our fashions to all branches of the federal government, together with the Division of Struggle, the intelligence group, you recognize, the extra civilian branches of the federal government beneath the phrases that we have supplied beneath our crimson strains.
We’re all the time prepared to try this, proper. You understand, we’re– we’re– we’re, you recognize, we– we– you recognize, we don’t– we do not take offense right here. The– the explanation we’re offering our expertise on this method is that we need to help the, you recognize, nationwide safety of the USA.
We’re not doing it, you recognize, for the sake of Pentagon officers. We’re not doing it for the sake of a selected administration. We’re doing it as a result of it is good for the nationwide safety of the USA. And we’re gonna proceed to try this.
JO LING KENT: Why do you assume that it’s higher for Anthropic, a personal firm, to have extra say in how AI is used within the army than the Pentagon itself?
DARIO AMODEI: So first I might say, and I believe this is a vital level, nobody on the bottom has truly, to our data run into the bounds of any of these– of any of those exceptions. These are, excuse me. These are 1% of use instances and– and ones that– that now we have seen no proof on the bottom have been executed.
Now– now, once more, I am unable to say what their plans are. That we do not know. However– however now we have no proof that these use instances have actually– have truly run into hassle. We have unfold throughout the Division of Struggle and different elements of the federal government without– with out working into any of those issues.
Now, by way of these one or two slim exceptions, I truly agree that in the long term, we have to have a democratic dialog. In the long term, I truly do consider that it’s Congress’s job. If, for instance, domest– there are potentialities with home mass surveillance, authorities shopping for of, you recognize, bulk information that has been produced on Individuals, places, private info, political affiliation to construct profiles, and it is now potential to research that with AI.
The truth that that is authorized, that looks as if, you recognize, the judicial interpretation of the Fourth Modification has not caught up. Or the legal guidelines handed by Congress haven’t caught up. So in the long term, we predict Congress ought to meet up with the place the expertise goes.
However Congress is just not the quickest shifting physique on the planet. And for proper now, we’re those who see this expertise on the entrance line. I might count on that the Division of Struggle, I might count on them to be considerate about these points, to, you recognize, to– to proactively, you recognize, think– take into consideration these points.
And so I might have anticipated them not– to not have any concern, and, you recognize, for us to have– for us to have a dialog. However I believe within the absence of that, you recognize, it, you recognize, we have to have a look at the expertise. We have to have a look at what it is able to by way of reliability, and we have to have a look at the methods during which it is getting forward of the legislation, and in– and during which it is escaping the intent of the legislation.
These are some very slim areas, however I believe they’re necessary. These are issues which might be basic to Individuals, proper. The– the– the– the– the appropriate to not be spied on by the federal government, proper. The– the appropriate for our army officers to make selections about warfare themselves and never flip it over utterly to a machine. These are– these are basic rules.
JO LING KENT: However within the identify of basic rules, why ought to Individuals belief you, the CEO of a personal firm to make these selections as an alternative of the federal authorities?
DARIO AMODEI: Nicely, I might give– I might give two solutions to that. One, you know– you recognize, we are– we’re a personal firm, proper>
JO LING KENT: Yeah.
DARIO AMODEI: We are able to select to promote or not promote no matter we wish. There are different suppliers. If the DoW, the federal government, you recognize, does not just like the companies we offer or– or– or– or the way in which that we make them, they’ll use one other contractor. This may have been the conventional approach to deal with this, proper.
Simply to say, I might have disagreed however I might have revered them in the event that they mentioned, DoW “We do not need to work with Anthropic. Our rules aren’t aligned with yours. We’re gonna go together with one of many different fashions.” However they’ve each prolonged that to elements of the federal government past the DoW and tried to punitively revoke our contracts past DoW.
They usually’ve executed this provide chain designation factor, which mainly says that “In case you’re half of– if you happen to’re– if you happen to’re one other personal firm who has army contracts, you’ll be able to’t use Anthropic in– in– you’ll be able to’t use Anthropic in a method that touches these army contracts.”
So that they’re reaching in to the habits of personal enterprise. And it is very exhausting to interpret this in any method aside from punitive. To our data, the availability chain designation has by no means been utilized to an American firm. It has solely been utilized to ad– you recognize, adversar– like, you recognize, Kaspersky Labs, which is a Russian cybersecurity firm that, you recognize, that is– is, you recognize, suspected of– suspected of ties to the Russian authorities. Chinese language chip suppliers. You understand, being– being lumped in with them, it– it feels very punitive and inappropriate, given the quantity that we have executed for U.S. nationwide safety.
JO LING KENT: So that you say you have executed a lot for U.S. nationwide safety. You are adhering to those two restrictions that you just need to maintain. Do you assume that Anthropic is aware of higher than the Pentagon right here?
DARIO AMODEI: We do not, look, you recognize, I– one of many issues a couple of free market and free enterprise is totally different of us can present totally different merchandise beneath totally different rules. Bear in mind, this is not nearly phrases of use. This is not nearly, you recognize, that is what our mannequin is legally allowed to do.
Our mannequin has a persona. It is able to sure issues. It is in a position to do sure issues reliably. It is in a position to not do sure issues reliably. And I believe we’re a very good decide of what our fashions can do reliably and what– and what they can not do reliably. And I believe we do have a very good view into how the expertise once more is getting forward of the legislation. And I–
JO LING KENT: So–
DARIO AMODEI: –but I might say– I might say once more, I– I– I truly agree with you that this isn’t tenable in– in the long run. I do not assume the appropriate long-term answer is for a personal firm and the Pentagon to argue about this. I believe Congress must act right here.
And we’re enthusiastic about that. We’re enthusiastic about what Congress might do to impose a few of these guardrails that do not hinder our capacity to defeat our adversaries however that, you recognize, enable us to defeat our adversaries in a method that is according to the values of– in– according to the values of our nation. However, as you recognize, Congress does not transfer quick.
JO LING KENT: No.
DARIO AMODEI: So, you recognize, I believe– I believe– I believe within the meantime, we do want to attract a line within the sand.
JO LING KENT: So till Congress acts, you are saying you’ll maintain agency right here. However there are such a lot of different corporations on the market that do enterprise with the U.S. authorities. Boeing builds plane for the U.S. army. Boeing does not inform the U.S. army what to do with that plane. How is that this any totally different?
DARIO AMODEI: Once more, I might say two ways in which it is totally different. One, I might level once more to the novelty of the expertise, proper. When a expertise is well-established, then, you recognize, the– the, you recognize, I– you recognize, I imply, there are many technical issues about aircrafts, but– however, you recognize, I believe– I believe– you recognize, a basic has a reasonably good understanding of, like, how an plane works. Aircrafts have been round for a very long time.
JO LING KENT: However there’s loads of innovation inside their– this trade.
DARIO AMODEI: Positive, however not on the tempo that– not on the tempo that we see with AI. AI is shifting so quick, I’ve talked usually about how AI is on an exponential development. Each– the fashions, the, you recognize, the– the– the– the– the quantity of computation that goes into the fashions doubles each 4 months. We now have by no means seen something like this tempo of innovation.
JO LING KENT: But when that tempo continues apace–
DARIO AMODEI: Sure.
JO LING KENT: –then the U.S. authorities won’t ever be caught up. So how does that logic apply, when you’ve got lengthy argued that you just need to work with the U.S. authorities to offer, you recognize, the suitable nationwide safety. If it is going to be such a quick growth for the foreseeable future, Congress cannot catch up, then why flip your again on it–
DARIO AMODEI: Nicely, I– it– I believe there’s only– I believe there’s solely catching up as soon as, proper. So the tempo of the expertise is quick. The problems that come up are few however crucial. Once more, we– we solely have two of those: home mass surveillance; totally autonomous weapons.
We have to have a dialog with Congress to assist them perceive some– a few of the dangers related to it. Once more, that is essentially the most American factor on the planet. Nobody desires to be spied on by the U.S. authorities. Nobody desires to be spied on by the U.S. authorities.
JO LING KENT: At the very same time, a few of our biggest adversaries have expertise that’s both rapidly catching as much as us or will finally achieve this, maybe already caught up. And so our m– if our army is essential to defending the American individuals and significant to our democracy, freedom, the republic, why keep on this place and say, “No, we’re not gonna cooperate–“
DARIO AMODEI: Once more, you recognize, once more, that is an abstract– that is an summary argument, however let’s take a look at the precise two makes use of. Home mass surveillance doesn’t assist the U.S. meet up with its adversaries. Home mass surveillance is– is, you recognize, is an abuse of the federal government’s authority, even the place it is technically authorized. In order that one we will rule out. Totally autonomous weapons, there I truly am involved that we might have to sustain. It, you recognize, it– it’s– it is not, you know–
JO LING KENT: You do.
DARIO AMODEI: –the expertise is just not prepared. And so we aren’t, as I mentioned, we aren’t categorically towards totally autonomous weapons. We merely consider that the reliability is just not there but, and that we have to have a dialog about oversight. And now we have supplied to work with the Division of Struggle to assist develop these applied sciences, to prototype them in a sandbox.
However they weren’t on this except they might do no matter they need proper from the start. And– and– and– and so, you recognize, once more, we– we have to stability the existential need– nobody has emphasised it greater than me– to defeat our adversaries. However we have to fight– we have to combat in the appropriate method. You understand, that is like saying–
JO LING KENT: There are many international locations which might be adversary–
DARIO AMODEI: –if– if adversaries commit warfare crimes, should not we commit warfare crimes as effectively? I am not saying this quantities to warfare crimes. What I am saying is that the– the– the– the essence of our values is that now we have to discover a approach to win in a method that preserves these values.
We won’t simply be a complete race to the underside. We– we, you recognize, now we have to have some rules. And these are only a few. This expertise can radically speed up what our army can do. I’ve talked to admirals. I’ve talked to generals. I’ve talked to combatant commanders, who say, “This has revolutionized what we will do.”
And– and– and these are simply the very restricted use instances we have deployed to date. And– and– and so why harp on the 1% of use instances which might be towards our values once we can pursue the 99% of use instances which might be in favor of our, that– that– that advance our democratic values and that defend this nation. And– and we will even attempt to examine that final 1% of use instances to know if there’s a approach to do them in keeping with our values. That’s our place, and I believe that is very cheap.
JO LING KENT: I need to perceive what’s the worst case situation that Individuals must be aware of when it comes to–
JO LING KENT: Can I ask you about what’s the worst case situation? What individuals must be involved about right here? Give us a few examples. It could be very useful for individuals to know.
JO LING KENT: I assume, like, what we need to perceive is when you’ve these considerations about autonomous weapons, give me one or two examples of what might go mistaken.
DARIO AMODEI: So the– the form of factor that we– I– there– there are two courses of issues that I can think about could– might go mistaken. One once more is round this concept of reliability, which is simply it targets the mistaken individual, it shoots a civilian. It does not present the judgment {that a} human sh– {that a} human soldier would present.
Pleasant fireplace or taking pictures a civilian or simply the mistaken form of factor. We do not need to promote one thing that we do not assume is dependable, and we do not need to promote one thing that would get our personal individuals killed or that would get harmless individuals killed.
Second is that this query of oversight. If you consider it, you recognize, you– you– human troopers, there’s, you recognize, there’s an entire chain of accountability that assumes a human makes use of their frequent sense. Suppose I’ve a military of 10 million drones all coordinated by one individual or a small set of individuals.
Cannot, you recognize, I believe it is simple to see that there are accountability points there, proper. That– that– that, you recognize, concentrating energy that a lot does not work. It– it doesn’t suggest we should not have this fleet. Once more, I do not know. Perhaps we want it sooner or later as a result of our adversaries can have it. However we have to have a dialog about accountability, about who’s holding the button and who can say no. And I believe that is very cheap.
JO LING KENT: I’ve one closing query as a result of now we have been right here ready for 2 days, with all due respect, to take a seat down with you. And I recognize your time. I simply need to ask you one final thing. President Trump has referred to as Anthropic “a left wing woke firm.” Is that this determination in any respect pushed by ideology?
DARIO AMODEI: I– look, I am unable to communicate for what, you recognize, I am unable to communicate for what different events are doing and what they’re doing.
JO LING KENT: However you and also you and Anthropic.
DARIO AMODEI: Yeah, look. We– we– however we– we I believe have tried to be very impartial. We communicate up on problems with AI coverage the place now we have experience. We do not– we do not have views– we do not take into consideration basic political points, and we attempt to work collectively every time there’s frequent floor.
For instance, I went to an occasion in Pennsylvania with the president, with Senator McCormick– about provisioning vitality, provisioning sufficient vitality to– energy our AI fashions in– provision our AI fashions within the U.S. I spoke to the president.
I, you recognize, I– I– I– I expressed that I, you recognize, agreed with many elements of what he is doing. We additionally did a pledge around– you recognize, using– utilizing AI for well being. And we have executed various different issues. When the AI Motion, the administration’s AI Motion Plan k– you recognize, when the administration’s AI Motion Plan got here out, we mentioned that there have been, you recognize, many, maybe most elements of it that we agreed with.
So this concept that we have in some way been partisan or that we’ve not been evenhanded, we have been studiously evenhanded. And– and once more, we won’t management if somebody, even– even the president, you recognize, ha– has an opinion about us. That is not beneath our management. What’s beneath our management is that we may be cheap. We may be impartial. And we will arise for what we consider.
JO LING KENT: One to 10, will there be an settlement with the federal authorities on this sooner or later? Or do you assume that is over?
DARIO AMODEI: Look, I– I– I’ve no crystal ball. For our half, our place is obvious. We now have these two crimson strains. We have had them from day one. We’re still– you recognize, we’re nonetheless advocating for these crimson strains. We’re not gonna transfer on these crimson strains.
If we will get to the purpose with the division the place, you recognize, the place, you recognize, we will see issues the identical method, then maybe there may very well be an settlement. For our half and for the sake of U.S. nationwide safety, we, you recognize, we– we proceed to need to make this work. However– you recognize, once more, it takes two events to have an settlement.
JO LING KENT: In case you had a second with the president proper now tonight, what would you say to him?
DARIO AMODEI: You understand, I, once more, I might say, we’re patriotic Individuals. We now have done– every thing now we have executed has been for the sake of this nation, for the sake of supporting U.S. nationwide safety. Our leaning ahead in deploying our fashions with the army was executed as a result of we consider on this nation.
We consider in– defeating our autocratic adversaries. We consider in defending America. The crimson strains now we have drawn we drew as a result of we– we– we– we consider that crossing these crimson strains is– is opposite to American values. And we needed to face up for American values.
And once we had been threatened with provide chain designation and Protection Manufacturing Act, that are unprecedented intrusions into the personal economic system by the federal government, we– we exercised our basic First Modification rights to talk up and disagree with the federal government. Disagreeing with the federal government is essentially the most American factor on the planet. And we’re patriots. In every thing now we have executed right here, now we have stood up for the values of this nation.
JO LING KENT: Do you assume Anthropic can survive this as a enterprise?
DARIO AMODEI: You understand– when– when the presi– when– Secretary Hegseth tweeted out the availability chain designation, he mentioned one thing that was inaccurate that far exceeds their lawful authority. He mentioned that “Any firm that has a army contract cannot do enterprise with Anthropic in any respect.”
That’s not what the legislation mentioned. We put out an announcement that pointed to the legislation. All of the legislation says is that, “As a part of its army contracts, any firm can’t use Anthropic as a part of these army contracts.” That could be a ver– that could be a way more restricted impression.
JO LING KENT: So that you’re assured then Anthropic can survive this.
DARIO AMODEI: Not– not solely survive it. We’re gonna be positive. The– the impression of this designation is pretty small. Now, the character of the tweet that the secretary put out was designed to create uncertainty, was designed to create a scenario the place individuals believed the impression can be a lot bigger, was designed to create concern, uncertainty, and doubt. However we cannot let that succeed. We shall be fine–
JO LING KENT: Critics name this an abuse of energy, what the Pentagon is doing and what the White Home is doing. Do you consider that is an abuse of energy?
DARIO AMODEI: You understand, once more, I might return to the concept that is unprecedented.
JO LING KENT: However is it an abuse of energy?
DARIO AMODEI: You understand, this has by no means occurred earlier than. This designation has by no means occurred earlier than with an American firm. And I believe it was made very clear in a few of their statements, in a few of their language that this was retaliatory and punitive. I do not– I do not– I do not know what else– what else to name it. Retaliatory and punitive.
JO LING KENT: So will you are taking authorized motion?
DARIO AMODEI: We– we– I– I– I’ve stated– I’ve acknowledged in our assertion, once more, all we have acquired is a tweet. We’ve not acquired an precise provide chain desig– you recognize, there’s — there’s been no precise motion by the federal government. There’s simply been tweets saying what they’re going– saying what they declare they’ll do. And–
JO LING KENT: You have not acquired any formal information–
DARIO AMODEI: We– we’ve not acquired any formal info in any way. All we have seen are tweets from the president and tweets from Secretary Hegseth. When– when– when– once we obtain some form of formal motion, we are going to have a look at it, we are going to perceive it, and we are going to problem it in courtroom.
JO LING KENT: What do you assume that claims about their capacity to navigate main nationwide safety points, if that is the way in which that you just say they’re speaking with you?
DARIO AMODEI: Once more, you recognize, I– I– I do not need to make this– I do not need to make this about this explicit administration. I do not need to make this about explicit individuals. We are attempting to do no matter we will to help U.S. nationwide safety.
That is why we’re dedicated to looking for a deal. If we won’t discover a deal, that’s the reason we’re dedicated to– to off-boarding in, you recognize, in a– in a easy method that enables our warfighters to proceed to be supported as they– as they go into conflicts.
And that is why we’re dedicated to standing up to– you recognize, actions that we predict aren’t according to the values of this nation. It is– it is not about any explicit individual. It is not about any explicit administration. It is concerning the precept of standing up for what’s proper.
JO LING KENT: Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, thanks very a lot. I recognize your coming.
DARIO AMODEI: Thanks a lot for having me.
JO LING KENT: Thanks.
