Comment by m3h
1 month ago
Someone who until yesterday did not seem bothered by his technology being possibly used to bomb elementary girls school in another country seems to suddenly care about the repression of citizens in yet another country.
No, we don't buy your virtue signaling. And we certainly don't need your better-than-thou opinions on this year's "nightmare scenarios".
> Someone who until yesterday did not seem bothered by his technology being possibly used to bomb elementary girls school in another country...
I might have missed something but wasn't the big story that Dario refused the Department of War's demand to use Anthropic's models for such purposes?
Palantir's Maven system integrates LLM models in decision making for identifying targets. It was using Claude when it identified targets in Iran, including the Minab elementary school
> Two sources confirmed to NBC News that Palantir’s AI systems, which draw in part on large language model technology, were used to identify targets. (Palantir’s CEO, Alex Karp, said he “can’t go into specifics” when asked about this on CNBC, but said that Claude was still integrated into Palantir’s systems used in the Iran war.)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/mar/...
This had nothing much to do with AI in particular though. The issue was that there had previously been a military installation at the same location, but the US military did not update its database. Apparently, one analyst had flagged the issue for review in 2019, but that was never done before the strike.
The point is that the same thing could have happened just as easily if you had selected targets based on the faulty data by any other means than an AI model.
5 replies →
The elementary school built where a military facility was previously located...
5 replies →
No. He refused the use against US citizens domestically. He had already agreed for military use against others - this is well reported.
Anthropic's ToS restricts the DoW from using their models for 1. Fully autonomous weapons systems, and 2. Mass domestic surveillance. There is no carve-out regarding who the autonomous weapons systems would be used against.
13 replies →
But he had business agreements with companies that are doing that (Palantir).
Do you understand that real politics sometimes means you need to doublespeak? You don't get the outcomes you want by speaking your direct intentions. Don't be a fool to think that what someone says is what they believe while playing these high stakes games with actors of differing motives and value systems (the current white house)
3 replies →
He was directly asked in a Bloomberg interview whether Claude was used in the bombing of the girl’s school in Iran, and his answer was “We don’t know”.
His redline was autonomous weapons, not the death of 100 innocent girls.
they wanted someone click “ok” before firing off bombs to a thousands of, partially hallucinated, targets? They are my resistance heroes.
1 reply →
No, he refused the DoW demand to use Anthropic models without limits. But Anthropic still agreed to military usage of their models, including for strike planning.
No, only for domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. It can be used to evaluate targets as long as a human pulls the trigger. But the DoD created a really strange position for itself, they use Claude, but also designed it as a supply chain threat, which should mean they cannot use it
“We are also left with no further information about the potential use of artificial intelligence in the targeting decision. The CEO of Anthropic admitted in an interview with Bloomberg that he does not know if or how their artificial intelligence software may have been used to select targets for U. S. attacks in Iran, but he was quick to shift blame to the military, in particular to an unnamed ‘human’ making final targeting decisions.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/06/usa-four-mont...
Yeah Dario is just flat out disgusting in term of how shamelessly hypocritical he is.
Do people actually believe that he gives a shit about the well being of the Chinese people? If the U.S. starts a war with China start bombing Chinese cities Dario would absolutely jump onboard supporting it. He'd probably make Claude to add DeepSeek and Moonshot HQ to the targeting list lmao.
He is super pro-Israel as well, and never once has he brought up the risk of the Israeli government using AI to control and repress people in other countries.
He is also 100% onboard with working with Palantir, who has the explicit goal of using AI for population control and repression and building out a surveillance state.
Meanwhile the world's most repressive government is North Korea, and obviously they don't even need AI to achieve that.
If you talk to people in China they'd laugh their ass off at Dario's notion that somehow they are all getting oppressed by DeepSeek or Kimi.
The emptiness of AI companies' waxing poetic about the future of humankind is laid bare by simply looking at what they actually do, and who they do business with. Actions speak louder than words, and they've driven the worth of their words into the dirt many times over.
[flagged]
> Meanwhile the world's most repressive government is North Korea, and obviously they don't even need AI to achieve that.
The country that exists solely because of China? That North Korea?
I mean I get your point, all of these guys are elitist authoritarians who will do anything for a buck, but I wouldn't bring up the DPRK in this discussion.
The country that exists because it has nuclear capabilities.
3 replies →
Please don't just copy paste existing comments
I thought the comment was a positive contribution.
3 replies →
The bombing of the school was horrible, but it was a mistake. I could see essentially the opposite argument: Anthropic should be more involved as to prevent mistakes in the future with better technology. Imagine Claude asking the decision makers at CENTCOM "this looks like a school, are you sure you want this added as a target?"
You’re absolutely right to push back. It was indeed a school. I’ll save <schoo_name> in my memory for the future.
> The bombing of the school was horrible, but it was a mistake
Please don't say this. It wasn't a mistake.
The very FIRST strike packages of the war are very clearly vetted. If you are involved in military planning, you know this.
They doubled tapped it after seeing people flee inside the save the children.
The goal here was to teach IRGC a lesson and demoralize Iranians, which clearly backfired.
Furthermore, US has been contentiously bombing civilian buildings, bridges, hospitals throughout the war. They have also bombed water desalination plants and other key infrastructure.
You have the US president threatening to use nuclear weapons and end the Persian civilization.
Let's not pretend.
> The goal here was to teach IRGC a lesson and demoralize Iranians, which clearly backfired.
I'm not so sure. A school in the US being bombed would hardly be expected to demoralize us. Quite the opposite.
What if the goal was to goad them into taking action that could justify boots on the ground? But they didn't fall for it and here we are.
1 reply →
I find it totally implausible that the president or any subordinates intentionally targeted a school. As I recall it was located next to a military base. A mistake seems more likely.
1 reply →
You don't get to start a completely unprovoked and illegal war of aggression, bomb tons of targets with little care, kill 100 schoolchildren, and then say, "But it was a mistake."
However terrible it is, it is still a mistake unless you're accusing them of doing it deliberately.
And however much you can say about the current US Administration, I don't think they're prioritizing bombing civilians over military targets.
5 replies →
a mistake that might be caused by the fact no one cares. an avoidable mistake.
[dead]
I like how he cited the current Trump administration in section about stifling decent.
[dead]
You act as if anyone was happy to hit an elementary school. I'm sure everyone involved feels it was a terrible tragedy
You give too much credit. Many think of it as an acceptable cost of waging war, not something to waste regret on. Some few think of it as a positive (they chant death to America over there).
I've never heard anyone say it was a positive. While you're absolutely right that many would say that it was a casualty of war and that we have to expect some amount of mistakes to be made that does not mean there is not regret.
4 replies →
Source?
The burden of proof is with you.. show me evidence of someone happy to have hit an elementary school
1 reply →
The elementary school example is a clear sign of bad faith. Neither Iran or the USA have intentionally blown up any school children.
They waited till the parents were searching the rubble for their children before the "double tap" strike.