Since I live in Minneapolis, I'd say we understand AI's risks to democracy better than Dario, given that AI has already been used to identify and map not only ICE targets but also to track protestors and journalists within the US. The pro-AI internet writers seemed to miss when this was actively happening earlier this year, and I'm not sure why because it made the national news. Since I'm old enough to remember decades of discussions about the PATRIOT act, the use of Palantir's AI-enabled tools to track citizens has been as shocking as any other revelation from Operation Metro Surge.
The logic that anything Hegseth does is a media event is a bit daft to me, since he is not currently a media professional. He is actively hurting people in a multifront war.
Like many other Trump officials, he is extremely familiar with media cycles, but nothing he is doing is unique. Every senior official in the administration is deeply savvy about the current state of how tech and media interact to keep them in power. I mean, they built their own arsenal of influencers, media companies and social networks to promote their own authoritarian actions and narratives. They are not doing media; they are doing textbook 20th century totalitarianism applied to 21st century media systems.
In no way are you like Pete Hegseth, Jasmine. You downplay what is sinister and violent in hopes it will turn out ok, which is very sweet but also not particularly grounded in the reality of the current moment.
Regardless, I'd encourage workers in AI not to just think about elections, but to engage in loud and active conversation-- and maybe even indulge in some activism-- regarding how the United States is currently using AI tech in all the worst ways. They are taking the paycheck, so they have a responsibility to chew on this morality and use it to guide their actions as adults all the time, not just every couple of years in November.
Media, propaganda, and aesthetics — creating content about the violence in addition to doing the violence — has always been a core part of the fascist’s playbook. I don’t point to the spectacle in order to downplay what’s happening. I think Minneapolis was Miller’s ICE making a spectacle of brutalizing immigrants and protesters in one city the same way that Hegseth wants to make a public example of Anthropic. I think the admin wants to do media precisely because they want to create a chilling effect on speech and dissent.
If you read this essay as me trying to downplay the admin, rather than trying to encourage the tech community to take seriously its authoritarian actions, I can’t really persuade you otherwise.
I think it's telling how you refer to "Minneapolis" as if it were an event on a timeline without any extra context, and not a real city in a real state with real people who are still being actively terrorized by the federal government. There has been a drawdown, but they're not gone yet. Just because events are not represented in a media diet doesn't mean real-world violence isn't happening.
Broadly, your comment ignores that AI is being used for active mass surveillance in the US, right now, and that in pro-AI media-on-media seemed to care about any surveillance or violence or weapons use until Dario was in the news.
I don't think you are trying to downplay the administration. (Although you are calling it "the admin"? Which seems to downplay it semantically.) I think you are treating this situation flippantly, but you are not downplaying what they are doing. Maybe you think that what you've written is radical and political, and I can respect that. We all come at resistance from different angles.
And I am not here for you to convince me of anything. I am here to have conversations in a forum, which remains the best function of the internet.
Those ruthless fascists again huh? Really, the world 1% cosplaying at resistance. Please. Sorry, but someone as bright as you seem shouldn't be resorting to the extreme.
I'm assuming that your abbreviation "DoW" is for Department of War. If my assumption is correct, you are in error. It should be DoD, for Department of Defense. Despite Trump and Hegseth's declarations they do not have the authority to rename a government agency created by Congress. Only Congress can do that and thus far, Congress has not. Please correct your article.
I am aware that the official name is still DoD. This is an opinion blog so I take a lot of stylistic liberties that would not pass a straight news reporter's fact-check. For me, using DoW emphasizes the ridiculousness of Hegseth's Pentagon.
Ah! I missed that. I certainly agree with you about its ridiculousness (also the attempt to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico ... sheesh! What are these people thinking?)
My concern is ... what is a name but a commonly accepted convention? If too many people start calling it the Department of War (or the Gulf of America) it will become just that. And then it's just like I'm "screaming into the wind".
I get that people are really angry about this, and I totally understand why and you are right to feel that way.
But don't be that guy turning up in a brilliant woman's comments to tell her off for a particular word choice in a fascinating article in her area of expertise.
I also understand why people might want to lash out at anyone around because it is so infuriating. But: more effective: whenever you have this feeling write to your representatives instead :-)
Or .... ask the writer of the article to correct the inaccuracy?
Ms. Alderman ...
(1) please point to the part of my comment where I "tell her off". You can't because I didn't. Ms. Sun makes repeated references to the DoW. I simply asked her to correct her article as no such agency exists.
(2) Why would I write my Congress-person? What should I ask them? Change the name of a Federal Agency to match Ms. Sun's article? If Donald Trump wants to call the Department of Defense, "that five-sided building where all the military people hang-out", he certainly can. It does not change its legal name.
Please don't assume that I am denigrating Ms. Sun or "lash(ing) out", because I am not.
Imagine a world in which all the tech companies who work with the DoW said "we stand with Anthropic" and stopped working with the government in response to this tantrum. That would be glorious indeed.
If you’re a conservative or libertarian of any stripe, you should be deeply concerned about technology of this scope and power being used to surveil American citizens. That’s a deeply shocking and frightening move by our government, no matter your political leanings.
You think you’re happy now with such measures because you imagine this surveillance will only be used on people you disagree with, or people you think of as criminals. But that’s not a given. What happens if a liberal president is in the WH? Would you feel safe being surveilled then? Do you want some analyst in DC cataloging the number of times you criticize the government?
Part of what preserves our civil liberties is the protection of privacy. I want to still be able to criticize my government, make fun of our politicians, and have my personal beliefs unexamined by those in power. Don’t you?
And if you say, “oh, these technologies won’t be used against *me*,” then I refer you to Exhibit A: Trump voters whose immigrant loved ones are now being deported (“But we didn’t think he meant US!”)
I didn't realize it was the liberals who wanted to avoid mass surveillance of American citizens. I thought it was the freedom-loving libertarians and conservatives who object to government overreach.
Well, Anthropic's position here basically amounts to "we want to surveil all uses of our technology", so it's not like they're against mass surveillance *per se*.
Eugine, are you comfortable with the US government using AI to surveil Americans or not? Do you think this is worth standing up against or not? It is possible to be against Anthropic using AI to surveil AND against the US government using AI to surveil, so address the point being made here.
Reading through your comments, leaves me feeling deeply sad, Jasmine. I’ve lived a whole lot longer than you have with an anthropological perspective about tech and the American experiment in democracy. There’s a burnt on crust of adolescence in your critique of Dario’s valiant attempt to run a business with principals intent on not knee capping the democratic struggle against authoritarianism.
This is not your every day authoritarianism that Don Don and his mafia henchman are attempting to use to annihilate this nation’s freedom.
It’s the kind that we-the-people were groomed to capitulate to in ways that only those of us who were narcissistically abused by parents before we were old enough to realize what was happening were forced to capitulate to.
I wasn’t alive in the 1930s when organized crime was running rampant here in the US but I certainly studied it while fighting tooth and nail to reclaim my agency after having it lacerated daily by narcissists.
What we are experiencing right now as a nation is truly like nothing our experiment in democracy has ever run into. This is organized crime taking over the media and all the agencies of government that took 200 years to build so we could together take care of one another.
You’re a smart girl, Jasmine. But the smugness and contempt in your voice aren’t making your case. The only possibility of a solution to this is if people who can think as deeply as you do take our thinking into our hearts. This isn’t a chess game. They’re employing the same tactics on all of us – including Anthropic – that Epstein used to exploit the girls he trafficked.
This is the Epstein administration.
And as a survivor of narcissistic abuse, I applaud every word that Dario utters as he refuses to be taken to the island.
Great post. A wild thought-would it be possible for Anthropic to simply relocate-ie move outside
US, to,say, Europe? That would make for an interesting rejoinder to the Feds. This would seem to be an attractive move for the EU-which lags badly behind US and China in tech/AI ,and needs solutions for dealing with Russia (ie drone warfare) . Getting Anthropic would put them back in the game immediately.Whether the EU has the cash and the resolve to make such an investment is another matter.
I wondered this briefly too, but quickly set it aside: It would be extremely strange for a company that had trumpeted its patriotism to be willing to move domicile so readily.
Jasmine, this is such a wow post! Well-informed, insightful, and an absolute delight to read. I completely agree that we're talking about an authoritarian "rule of fear," theatrically staged by „petty and personalistic“ actors. If AI cannot be contained—neither by inherent features, nor by companies with an ethical backbone, nor by restricting it to "democratic" states—what does that mean for the upholding of the social fabric and civil liberties? You mention „boring institutions and rule of law.“ OK, what else? Don't give in to bullies, don't let them divide and conquer you, and make sure to act preemptively. That's as true as it is easy to say when you aren't one of the few people at the heart of technological development who can actually make a difference. What's more? You're offering to speak up as an independent journalist for those who are afraid of publicly voicing their dissent. Excellent. What can the rest of us do? Any and all suggestions are welcome!
Quick typo note: "But I think that tech’s free market faithfuls underestimated the extent that their support could secure them against MAGA’s recklessness and dogma."
Posted by Jasmine Sun elsewhere in these comments:
"I am aware that the official name is still DoD. This is an opinion blog so I take a lot of stylistic liberties that would not pass a straight news reporter's fact-check. For me, using DoW emphasizes the ridiculousness of Hegseth's Pentagon."
"This is President of the United States doing what Putin did all those years ago. The billionaires know it. In fact, they expected it. That’s why they engaged in such sycophantic displays when Trump returned to office, lavishing Trump and his family with money and gifts and praise.
this Anthropic–Pentagon saga feels like a real moment where tech context and real world friction collide. On one hand, companies trying to set boundaries; on the other, institutional pressure to “define lawful use” on someone else’s terms.
It’s not just about models and contracts - it’s about who gets to decide how powerful tools are used. And that matters more than the headlines.
Jasmine - maybe there is some semblance of strategy behind this posturing. Here's a straw-man hypothesis:
Let’s say you are a strategist looking at the midterms. You see a future with significant job losses due to AI advances. It is convenient to have the company with the most capable models to also be run by a bunch of nutty, “left-wing”, unpatriotic weirdos.
I am not saying Hegseth has read Rene Girard and believes in the importance of a scape goat for the AI weirdness to come. But there are others (ahem - Peter Thiel) who are..
Interesting take, but how exactly would the scapegoating work? Would it be "the company that didn't work with us ruined AI for everybody" or "AI is bad"? Either way, that would undermine the heavy pro-AI stance the government seems to have had so far
Great article with a more political bent than usual. It was especially interesting seeing how you square the AI company and Trump world circle. As I was reading the news I had the opposite reaction to you. I thought this was fairly typical in political terms, a cabinet member thumbing his chest demanding obedience (as with tariffs or with immigration) before losing interest or another story getting more prominence. I thought big tech companies knew or were more aware of the political risks associated with this Admin. So I was surprised by the significance of the story, just as you were surprised that Big Tech thought its support bought it protection from the political risk. So I was on the opposite side of your trade.
The fascist argument is interesting, I agree in sentiment, but I think a more persistent feature is the drumming uncertainty that comes with swinging actions. Whereas past admins tried to be consistent and not coerce the fact this so persistent means AI safety à la Biden would be impractical. You once wrote/said about the Tech shift to the right that the idea that the Gov could restrict startups was part of the explanation (Marc Andreesen being upset about unbanking) in some of the tweets about how one shouldn't fund AI startups I see just that. After all for a large part of the economy there are already new arbitrary rules that make businesses harder. Tech seems now more caught up and lobbying for the vibes has its limits.
Overall the piece felt more direct and less prosaic with a nice call to action. More Kevin Roose less Susan Sontag. Wonderful in any case!
Since I live in Minneapolis, I'd say we understand AI's risks to democracy better than Dario, given that AI has already been used to identify and map not only ICE targets but also to track protestors and journalists within the US. The pro-AI internet writers seemed to miss when this was actively happening earlier this year, and I'm not sure why because it made the national news. Since I'm old enough to remember decades of discussions about the PATRIOT act, the use of Palantir's AI-enabled tools to track citizens has been as shocking as any other revelation from Operation Metro Surge.
The logic that anything Hegseth does is a media event is a bit daft to me, since he is not currently a media professional. He is actively hurting people in a multifront war.
Like many other Trump officials, he is extremely familiar with media cycles, but nothing he is doing is unique. Every senior official in the administration is deeply savvy about the current state of how tech and media interact to keep them in power. I mean, they built their own arsenal of influencers, media companies and social networks to promote their own authoritarian actions and narratives. They are not doing media; they are doing textbook 20th century totalitarianism applied to 21st century media systems.
In no way are you like Pete Hegseth, Jasmine. You downplay what is sinister and violent in hopes it will turn out ok, which is very sweet but also not particularly grounded in the reality of the current moment.
Regardless, I'd encourage workers in AI not to just think about elections, but to engage in loud and active conversation-- and maybe even indulge in some activism-- regarding how the United States is currently using AI tech in all the worst ways. They are taking the paycheck, so they have a responsibility to chew on this morality and use it to guide their actions as adults all the time, not just every couple of years in November.
Media, propaganda, and aesthetics — creating content about the violence in addition to doing the violence — has always been a core part of the fascist’s playbook. I don’t point to the spectacle in order to downplay what’s happening. I think Minneapolis was Miller’s ICE making a spectacle of brutalizing immigrants and protesters in one city the same way that Hegseth wants to make a public example of Anthropic. I think the admin wants to do media precisely because they want to create a chilling effect on speech and dissent.
If you read this essay as me trying to downplay the admin, rather than trying to encourage the tech community to take seriously its authoritarian actions, I can’t really persuade you otherwise.
I think it's telling how you refer to "Minneapolis" as if it were an event on a timeline without any extra context, and not a real city in a real state with real people who are still being actively terrorized by the federal government. There has been a drawdown, but they're not gone yet. Just because events are not represented in a media diet doesn't mean real-world violence isn't happening.
Broadly, your comment ignores that AI is being used for active mass surveillance in the US, right now, and that in pro-AI media-on-media seemed to care about any surveillance or violence or weapons use until Dario was in the news.
I don't think you are trying to downplay the administration. (Although you are calling it "the admin"? Which seems to downplay it semantically.) I think you are treating this situation flippantly, but you are not downplaying what they are doing. Maybe you think that what you've written is radical and political, and I can respect that. We all come at resistance from different angles.
And I am not here for you to convince me of anything. I am here to have conversations in a forum, which remains the best function of the internet.
Damn, @deborah carver!! Keep it up!!
Those ruthless fascists again huh? Really, the world 1% cosplaying at resistance. Please. Sorry, but someone as bright as you seem shouldn't be resorting to the extreme.
Jasmine I have been waiting so eagerly for this post
Your "emergency" "half-baked" takes are more developed than most full ones 👏
don’t say this or else I’ll start spending less effort on posts
Ms. Sun:
I'm assuming that your abbreviation "DoW" is for Department of War. If my assumption is correct, you are in error. It should be DoD, for Department of Defense. Despite Trump and Hegseth's declarations they do not have the authority to rename a government agency created by Congress. Only Congress can do that and thus far, Congress has not. Please correct your article.
I am aware that the official name is still DoD. This is an opinion blog so I take a lot of stylistic liberties that would not pass a straight news reporter's fact-check. For me, using DoW emphasizes the ridiculousness of Hegseth's Pentagon.
Ah! I missed that. I certainly agree with you about its ridiculousness (also the attempt to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico ... sheesh! What are these people thinking?)
My concern is ... what is a name but a commonly accepted convention? If too many people start calling it the Department of War (or the Gulf of America) it will become just that. And then it's just like I'm "screaming into the wind".
Thanks for your response, Ms. Sun!
I get that people are really angry about this, and I totally understand why and you are right to feel that way.
But don't be that guy turning up in a brilliant woman's comments to tell her off for a particular word choice in a fascinating article in her area of expertise.
I also understand why people might want to lash out at anyone around because it is so infuriating. But: more effective: whenever you have this feeling write to your representatives instead :-)
Or .... ask the writer of the article to correct the inaccuracy?
Ms. Alderman ...
(1) please point to the part of my comment where I "tell her off". You can't because I didn't. Ms. Sun makes repeated references to the DoW. I simply asked her to correct her article as no such agency exists.
(2) Why would I write my Congress-person? What should I ask them? Change the name of a Federal Agency to match Ms. Sun's article? If Donald Trump wants to call the Department of Defense, "that five-sided building where all the military people hang-out", he certainly can. It does not change its legal name.
Please don't assume that I am denigrating Ms. Sun or "lash(ing) out", because I am not.
I just discovered you from your interview with The Atlantic. Great writing. I'm subscribed and looking forward to reading more of your articles.
Imagine a world in which all the tech companies who work with the DoW said "we stand with Anthropic" and stopped working with the government in response to this tantrum. That would be glorious indeed.
Sorry, but the ability of you wokes to force all companies to stand with you is gone, and it's not coming back.
If you’re a conservative or libertarian of any stripe, you should be deeply concerned about technology of this scope and power being used to surveil American citizens. That’s a deeply shocking and frightening move by our government, no matter your political leanings.
You think you’re happy now with such measures because you imagine this surveillance will only be used on people you disagree with, or people you think of as criminals. But that’s not a given. What happens if a liberal president is in the WH? Would you feel safe being surveilled then? Do you want some analyst in DC cataloging the number of times you criticize the government?
Part of what preserves our civil liberties is the protection of privacy. I want to still be able to criticize my government, make fun of our politicians, and have my personal beliefs unexamined by those in power. Don’t you?
And if you say, “oh, these technologies won’t be used against *me*,” then I refer you to Exhibit A: Trump voters whose immigrant loved ones are now being deported (“But we didn’t think he meant US!”)
Oh, this technology is going to be used to do what it can do.
Heck, Anthropic's position here is that it wants to surviel all their users. It just doesn't want anyone else using its technology for that purpose..
I didn't realize it was the liberals who wanted to avoid mass surveillance of American citizens. I thought it was the freedom-loving libertarians and conservatives who object to government overreach.
Well, Anthropic's position here basically amounts to "we want to surveil all uses of our technology", so it's not like they're against mass surveillance *per se*.
Eugine, are you comfortable with the US government using AI to surveil Americans or not? Do you think this is worth standing up against or not? It is possible to be against Anthropic using AI to surveil AND against the US government using AI to surveil, so address the point being made here.
Hint: start thinking about how things would have to work in practice, rather than just making virtue signaling declarations.
There's a lot of available data about people online. How do you stop people from collating it short of setting one's out mass servilence system?
Reading through your comments, leaves me feeling deeply sad, Jasmine. I’ve lived a whole lot longer than you have with an anthropological perspective about tech and the American experiment in democracy. There’s a burnt on crust of adolescence in your critique of Dario’s valiant attempt to run a business with principals intent on not knee capping the democratic struggle against authoritarianism.
This is not your every day authoritarianism that Don Don and his mafia henchman are attempting to use to annihilate this nation’s freedom.
It’s the kind that we-the-people were groomed to capitulate to in ways that only those of us who were narcissistically abused by parents before we were old enough to realize what was happening were forced to capitulate to.
I wasn’t alive in the 1930s when organized crime was running rampant here in the US but I certainly studied it while fighting tooth and nail to reclaim my agency after having it lacerated daily by narcissists.
What we are experiencing right now as a nation is truly like nothing our experiment in democracy has ever run into. This is organized crime taking over the media and all the agencies of government that took 200 years to build so we could together take care of one another.
You’re a smart girl, Jasmine. But the smugness and contempt in your voice aren’t making your case. The only possibility of a solution to this is if people who can think as deeply as you do take our thinking into our hearts. This isn’t a chess game. They’re employing the same tactics on all of us – including Anthropic – that Epstein used to exploit the girls he trafficked.
This is the Epstein administration.
And as a survivor of narcissistic abuse, I applaud every word that Dario utters as he refuses to be taken to the island.
This is an epic display of assumption and egoism while declaring others “narcissists” and damning the other half of the country.
One boggles at the display.
Maybe go easy on the condescension
“Now I am no national security expert, but neither is Pete Hegseth.” 👌👌
Great post. A wild thought-would it be possible for Anthropic to simply relocate-ie move outside
US, to,say, Europe? That would make for an interesting rejoinder to the Feds. This would seem to be an attractive move for the EU-which lags badly behind US and China in tech/AI ,and needs solutions for dealing with Russia (ie drone warfare) . Getting Anthropic would put them back in the game immediately.Whether the EU has the cash and the resolve to make such an investment is another matter.
I don't think this makes much sense — here's a good post explaining why & what might be better: https://writing.antonleicht.me/p/can-you-poach-a-frontier-lab
Its indeed a good post-thanks.
But the strategy it outlines requires long term coordination
and planning-and investment in compute infrastructure .It doesent
look like the EU has such a plan.
I wondered this briefly too, but quickly set it aside: It would be extremely strange for a company that had trumpeted its patriotism to be willing to move domicile so readily.
Well, the EU has *de facto* banned AI development.
Jasmine, this is such a wow post! Well-informed, insightful, and an absolute delight to read. I completely agree that we're talking about an authoritarian "rule of fear," theatrically staged by „petty and personalistic“ actors. If AI cannot be contained—neither by inherent features, nor by companies with an ethical backbone, nor by restricting it to "democratic" states—what does that mean for the upholding of the social fabric and civil liberties? You mention „boring institutions and rule of law.“ OK, what else? Don't give in to bullies, don't let them divide and conquer you, and make sure to act preemptively. That's as true as it is easy to say when you aren't one of the few people at the heart of technological development who can actually make a difference. What's more? You're offering to speak up as an independent journalist for those who are afraid of publicly voicing their dissent. Excellent. What can the rest of us do? Any and all suggestions are welcome!
Great post!
Quick typo note: "But I think that tech’s free market faithfuls underestimated the extent that their support could secure them against MAGA’s recklessness and dogma."
I think you mean *over*estimated?
oops, thanks
Curious about your use of “DoW.” Why accede to this branding exercise?
Posted by Jasmine Sun elsewhere in these comments:
"I am aware that the official name is still DoD. This is an opinion blog so I take a lot of stylistic liberties that would not pass a straight news reporter's fact-check. For me, using DoW emphasizes the ridiculousness of Hegseth's Pentagon."
In a similar vein:
"This is President of the United States doing what Putin did all those years ago. The billionaires know it. In fact, they expected it. That’s why they engaged in such sycophantic displays when Trump returned to office, lavishing Trump and his family with money and gifts and praise.
"Putinism has come to America."
https://dgardner.substack.com/p/putinism-has-come-to-america
this Anthropic–Pentagon saga feels like a real moment where tech context and real world friction collide. On one hand, companies trying to set boundaries; on the other, institutional pressure to “define lawful use” on someone else’s terms.
It’s not just about models and contracts - it’s about who gets to decide how powerful tools are used. And that matters more than the headlines.
Do you have any idea how sick ordinary people are of tech companies setting limits on how customers can use products they paid for?
Jasmine - maybe there is some semblance of strategy behind this posturing. Here's a straw-man hypothesis:
Let’s say you are a strategist looking at the midterms. You see a future with significant job losses due to AI advances. It is convenient to have the company with the most capable models to also be run by a bunch of nutty, “left-wing”, unpatriotic weirdos.
I am not saying Hegseth has read Rene Girard and believes in the importance of a scape goat for the AI weirdness to come. But there are others (ahem - Peter Thiel) who are..
Interesting take, but how exactly would the scapegoating work? Would it be "the company that didn't work with us ruined AI for everybody" or "AI is bad"? Either way, that would undermine the heavy pro-AI stance the government seems to have had so far
Great article with a more political bent than usual. It was especially interesting seeing how you square the AI company and Trump world circle. As I was reading the news I had the opposite reaction to you. I thought this was fairly typical in political terms, a cabinet member thumbing his chest demanding obedience (as with tariffs or with immigration) before losing interest or another story getting more prominence. I thought big tech companies knew or were more aware of the political risks associated with this Admin. So I was surprised by the significance of the story, just as you were surprised that Big Tech thought its support bought it protection from the political risk. So I was on the opposite side of your trade.
The fascist argument is interesting, I agree in sentiment, but I think a more persistent feature is the drumming uncertainty that comes with swinging actions. Whereas past admins tried to be consistent and not coerce the fact this so persistent means AI safety à la Biden would be impractical. You once wrote/said about the Tech shift to the right that the idea that the Gov could restrict startups was part of the explanation (Marc Andreesen being upset about unbanking) in some of the tweets about how one shouldn't fund AI startups I see just that. After all for a large part of the economy there are already new arbitrary rules that make businesses harder. Tech seems now more caught up and lobbying for the vibes has its limits.
Overall the piece felt more direct and less prosaic with a nice call to action. More Kevin Roose less Susan Sontag. Wonderful in any case!