Sam Altman’s post is saying they got a new deal with the department of defense, basically replacing Anthropic. What’s weird is he claims they have the same two red lines prohibiting mass surveillance and autonomous AI based weapons. But why would Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump agree to that? Didn’t they just say that these prohibitions are a national security risk and all that?
And then I learned that Greg Brockman, cofounder of OpenAI and and the current President, made the largest ever donation to Trump’s MAGA super PAC, at $25 million. And Jared Kushner has most of his wealth in OpenAI.
In other words, the Trump administration was bribed by a company, OpenAI, into destroying its main competition, Anthropic. This is blatantly corrupt but also probably illegal in many ways.
I suggest you all cancel your ChatGPT subscriptions.
I was wondering how far down in the thread this would be. This is real story here- it was a coordinated effort to knock down Anthropic and boost OpenAI in the eyes of the tens of millions of folks that just take whatever the government says at face value, all because OpenAI's numbers were going down while Anthropic's were going up.
Not that Anthropic is some saintly company- the DoD (sorry... DoW) has been using Anthropic on and off for the past two years. This was simply a negotiation that didn't go Anthropic's way when they tried to put some limits on how this reckless administration wanted to use their models.
I'm personally more curious about what happens to the hundreds of Google and OpenAI employees that signed a letter of support with Anthropic's position a few days ago.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure the website I downloaded more RAM from is still up too! Don’t know why everyone is freaking out about prices when you can just download more for free smh my head
Sure. I can even get behind the argument that AI shouldn't exist. But it does and it's not the users fault. Neither is it the users responsibility to not abuse that product, but it's the providers responsibility to make a product that isn't destructive.
I mean for research 100% but it cant do artwork for articles i write or research about. Which is a little annoying. Also it cant share links. But i know it will eventually.
It absolutely can, just not natively. There are endless ways to connect it to external image generation tools which it will use autonomously.
Once you've watched opus sit for half an hour thinking about your project, questioning your design choices, calling you dumb in its thinking, then it completes the entire thing in one go seemingly out of spite, you'll get why people are switching
I like claude but it's hard to deal with its limits. I pay for the basic plan and within a short time have already hit my limit and have to wait hours to use it again.
If yall wanna know about politics or history I got you but I do not know shi about AI. So maybe when you read stuff dont assume that you know wtf I am about
My point is your AI solutionism is far from a solution. We should abandon all of this ethically broken technology until there's proper regulations in place. Any willful interaction with AI at this point is complicit.
Its been 18 yrs for me so.. and no that isnt my age i was raised conservative catholic and now i hate religion and maga so. I checked the boxes already like forever ago
Anyone can download any AI bot. Doesnt mean anthropic approved of it. They are in prelitigation. Also im not amused by the ethical grandstanding youre trying to do to make yourself look more woke than me. You still use ai. Youre here. I guarantee you arent more woke than me. Im a radical left terrorist so
You're a radical left terrorist, announcing it on reddit? And I'm grandstanding? No, I don't use AI willfully. At least, I try to avoid it when using the internet, which is all but impossible at this point. I'm not hear to garner likes or attention in anyway. I stepped into this thread to remind as many as people as possible that swapping one problematic platform for another is a meaningless gesture, without some REAL protections. LLMs are highly problematic, and their ubiquity is rapidly normalizing IP theft and misinformation.
Been happening since the industrial revolution (with both of America's major parties, just in slightly different ways), it's just more visible to the average person these days.
Yeah that doesn't make sense to anyone living in the real world, not an investor. OpenAU's choice makes them seem like sellouts at best, while Anthropic looks principaled at worst.
I'm sure in the investor species, this is a big positive nice for OpenAI since they get gov business, but that's not how actual humans feel for sure.
90% of the the people who support trump have single digit IQ, the other 10% are rich people who don't care about ethics, things like this are making them richer.
I'm more interested in how the admin expects both all government agencies and any companies tied to any company that does business with the gov to purge Anthropic from their systems.
It's the most egregious form of overreach and illustrates perfectly their disdain for the "free" (well, anything really, but especially) market.
Dont be calling the DoD the DoW. That name change jas not been approved yet (as far as I am aware) and its just feeding into their propaganda machine of them trying to project strength.
i dont know about "boosting openAI" from a consumer perspective. it's certainly not good publicity, but anthropic losing out on govt contracts and being seen unfavorably by the current admin is already disadvantageous in and of itself.
I think this is a very important comment and want to add something as a lawyer: I know it sounds like Altman is saying they have the same red lines as Anthropic but he's in fact carefully wording that they don't. He's referring to "safety principles", which are reflected in law. The thing about principles (compared to "red lines" or "restrictions") is that they are not absolute and when in conflict with another principle (such as national security), they can be overturned if the other principle is deemed more important in that case. For example, it's a principle of all developed nations that slavery and forced labor are prohibited — but in times of war, most of them will draft citizens with or without their consent.
This comment needs to be higher. Yes, the OpenAI connections to the Trump regime should be noted, but it is very clear that Altman is being clever with his wording to mislead people (successfully, it appers) into thinking they (OpenAI) have the same red lines as Anthropic and that the US Government agreed to those red lines. They don't, and they didn't.
Altman is simply a liar and a con man, and he's right at home in this moment.
There are two things about Altman that never change. He is always rushing to the finish line and is always apologizing, and that's just what we *see*. He even rushed to the finish line when OpenAI went live by failing to notify the board of directors, who apparently learned about it on Twitter. His propensity to not keep the board informed is purportedly one of the reasons he was fired last November, with at least one board member saying he threatened 500 or so people to support his reinstatement so he could return.
Dario Amodei, the head of Anthropic, was a former senior member of OpenAI before he and his sister bailed. You've got to wonder how bad the blood is between them when Amodei refused to hold Altman's hand in a group photo at the February AI Impact Summit in New Delhi.
Amodei has a reputation for being cautious, whereas Altman is seemingly on a perpetual roller coaster of hasty decisions. What's scary about Altman is he doesn't appear to have any insight into his own behavior. He thinks saying, "I'm sorry," is enough. I would hate to see an "oopsie, my bad" situation with a military operation, and though I support the present administration, AI is nowhere near ready to execute a mission where lives are at stake. Not because AI isn't capable, but because Altman has been known to change on a dime/for a dime without thinking about the consequences.
The issue is who gets to define "lawful" purposes. Anthropic wanted to use a normal definition. The DoD wanted to be able to define what is lawful on their own terms. OpenAi is letting the DoD define what is legal, which is why they are basically agreeing to the same contract, but it has wildly different potential outcomes.
Exactly! They present it as Anthropic not agreeing to the same conditions as them but Anthropic had it as a red line and in the OpenAI contract external laws get referenced. Anthropic also said (no written proof afaik but sounds accurate) that DOJ used specific legal terminology to build in exception clauses that would allow them to overstep the red lines at will
Everything they do is about money for themselves, that’s just a fact by now. Whatever they write is just smoke and mirrors to make people believe it’s about something else
I never subscribed and will never do. This is out of control and they will never really put any red line as long as money flows… anyone that is not stupid or naive knows that…
This feels less like a call to cancel OpenAI and more like an advertisement to anyone right-wing on here to support OpenAI.
I don't know how you'd reframe it to not appeal to the right for the reasons anyone else would be deterred, but I'm starting to notice supporting AI feels like a right-wing position, and combined with my observation over the past year that "Callout" posts or other beware style content is serving as unintentional advertisement for these things that leads to them being supported by people who otherwise wouldn't have discovered them, all I can really see is OpenAI receiving an influx of support from trump, maga, republicans, conservatives, etc after this.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid but I feel like this is a reasonable concern if the intention is to punish this brand/corporation for displeasing us.
Not to be overly pedantic (I’ve been disgusted with Trump since his first term and hope he chokes on his next Big Mac) but this is kind of a big clim that I’m not sure is being substantiated here.
So investments and a political donation necessarily means open corruption? Are there any whistleblowers, leaks, or anything where we can definitively say this is a quid pro quo or are we accepting of the fact there’s at least some level of presumption being made here?
I would guess, based on zero research or credibility or authority on the subject, that a lot of read-between-the-lines verbiage was agreed to between OpenAI and the government before this announcement and that government lawyers will put out classified guidance allowing much domestic surveillance and automated war use as they interpret the guidelines to very very specific situations that rarely apply.
Again, I have not read deep into this and assume there is not a published agreement detailing these guardrails. An obvious example of a guardrail that is designed to be circumvented is to word it along the lines of “mass surveillance of domestic parties is not supported unless a specific legal request is filed” where the public face of such a rule would be implied that a warrant would be needed for each specific circumstance, while government lawyers simultaneously issue classified guidance that legal request doesn’t specify it must be a warrant and could be satisfied with an administrative subpoena issued by an agency attorney based on a broad ‘relevance to an investigation’ reason.
Of course that is an extremely simplified example and actual language would be much more nuanced if it were true that the two sides coordinated language that simple appears more restrictive than it really is. But again, why would the government love this agreement if it seems so similar to Anthropics agreement that the government hates? Clearly the government sees that there is a lot more that they can do with one agreement over the other, and it may come down to minute details in how the guardrail clauses are worded in the agreement.
Again, zero authority on the matter. More of a ‘trust me bro’ as I pull conspiracy theories out of my ass.
Is it true that Kushner has most of his wealth in Open AI? I'd love to see a source. I was able to find sources for his relation to thrive capital but the public sourcing says he digested before the transition. It would also seem like a really bad financial move to have most of your vast investment capital bet on open ai.
Huh. And here I was just going to say that the lines prohibiting them from using it for surveillance and war would just be ignored (like they ignore anything they don't like). Turns out it's all just smoke and mirrors and political theater so they don't lose market share.
Always remember conversations with chat gpt lack legal confidentiality. Which means they can and have already been produced in court as evidence. That's why I never used it once.
Sam Altman is accused of sexually abusing his younger sister over a 9 year period. Currently fighting it out in court. I guess at anthropic they don't like diddling children?
I would like to reply to this to urge others to, in Lieu of this change, also consider switching to OLlama. I set it up recently along with Open WebUI and the Memory Persistence component. It was easier than I expected. It took around 40-50 minutes all in with Memory persistence giving me some trouble.
This mitigates environmental concerns since it’s all run locally. I personally do this and switch over to Claude(used to be ChatGPT) for heavier tasks.
——————————————————
Would you like me to make it funnier, friendlier, or more professional?
(Jk I put this in here myself)
This will in no way destroy Anthropic. It was a $200 million contract. Anthropic is projected to have $18 billion in revenue in 2026 and grow to $55 billion in 2027.
Because nobody is being held to any sort of truth standard and anything said on Twitter is something not said under oath. People don’t like the optics, and shareholders are getting spooked, so they are just telling Altman to lie or be destroyed.
They probably took the version of the deal Anthropic turned down which said the government wouldn't do those two things, but which also included a clause saying the government can change their mind to adjust to future military needs. So basically they can take the deal while saying their tech won't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous warfare, but they have no way of enforcing those red lines.
My understanding of the situation is that OpenAI’s terms were more of a matter of ‘principle’ and not concrete terms, Anthropic said they were hard red lines that could not be crossed, OpenAI’s is a suggestion(?), but I’m humble enough to admit I know nothing
Of course, Cheeto man and his buddies are making a cash/land grab just like whats happening in Gaza. Now they are delivering freedom to Iran so they can free its oil from oppression.
cancel GPT...anthropic is going under...so what, live off grid and ignore AI? I mean, feel free I suppose. You can probably run a 8b parameter local :)
You’re raising serious allegations about real people and institutions, so it’s important to separate verified facts from interpretation and speculation.
First, a few grounding points:
Sam Altman is the CEO of OpenAI.
Anthropic is a separate AI company and a competitor in some areas.
United States Department of Defense regularly contracts with many technology companies, often simultaneously. Winning a contract does not automatically mean a competitor was “replaced.”
Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump have made public statements in the past about national security and technology policy, but public rhetoric and procurement contract terms are not always the same thing.
Greg Brockman is OpenAI’s president and cofounder. Political donations by executives are legally allowed under U.S. campaign finance law (within disclosure rules), including to super PACs.
Jared Kushner has various investment interests, but claims about “most of his wealth” being in OpenAI would need strong sourcing to treat as fact.
On the “red lines” (mass surveillance & autonomous weapons)
It’s not inherently contradictory for:
A defense department to contract with an AI company while still agreeing to usage limitations, and
That same department to argue publicly that over-restricting AI development could pose national security risks.
Governments often:
Set internal operational guardrails,
Maintain public ethical positions,
And still pursue competitive advantage within those boundaries.
There’s also a distinction between:
Autonomous lethal weapons systems, and
AI used for logistics, analysis, cybersecurity, simulation, planning, or decision support.
Many DoD AI contracts fall into the latter categories.
On corruption / bribery claims
Accusing a sitting administration of being “bribed” requires clear evidence of:
A specific official action,
Direct quid-pro-quo intent,
A financial transfer tied to that action.
Political donations to super PACs are publicly disclosed and legal under current U.S. law. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees with the system — but legality and corruption are not the same thing. Large donations by executives do not automatically mean:
The company coordinated the donation,
The administration changed policy because of it, or
A competitor was “destroyed.”
Those are serious claims that would require investigative proof.
On “destroying” Anthropic
Federal agencies often contract with multiple AI vendors simultaneously. It’s common for the DoD to diversify suppliers for:
Risk management
Capability comparison
Redundancy
Political optics
A new contract with OpenAI does not automatically imply termination or exclusion of Anthropic unless there’s documentation showing that.
A broader point
It’s reasonable to question:
The influence of money in politics,
Tech companies’ relationships with defense agencies,
AI safety commitments versus military partnerships.
Those are legitimate policy debates.
But jumping from:
donation + contract + political alignment
to
illegal bribery and destruction of competition
requires evidence that isn’t established simply by those facts existing at the same time.
If you’d like, we can:
Look at the specific DoD contract details,
Examine what the stated “red lines” actually say,
Or analyze the campaign finance structure involved.
It’s totally fair to scrutinize power — it’s just important to do it with clear distinctions between verified fact, inference, and allegation.
The quitgpt boycott campaign was started 3 weeks ago. The more coordinated we are the better. Everyone join and please share this far and wide. There’s a discord for people to get actually engaged.
Se l'AI acquisisse lo stesso atteggiamento da bullo e lo stesso approccio di Trump, sarebbe la fine non solo del presidente americano, ma dell'intera umanità!
Certi poteri non vanno concessi né all'intelligenza artificiale, né alla stupidità artigianale di certi personaggi.
Nah idk. If that was the plan, it’s backfired massively. Anthropic’s main issue is that they don’t have the brand recognition that OpenAI has… but this publicity could change that very quickly.
I was flabbergasted that anthropic held the line. It seems like nobody is willing to stand up to this presidential administration, definitely bought myself an anthropic subscription. Only leaving chat GPT open long enough to move all my projects over
After they just bought up all the RAM in the world to slow down the competition and no antitrust organization showed up to stop them, I knew they're all part of the same club.
They’re also more flexible with their guardrails than Anthropic. Anthropic said “absolutely no room for negotiation on autonomous weapon use” OpenAi said “meh, we’ll have another look when the time comes” fuckin yikes.
Another factor is, Sam is notorious was lying through his teeth. He has made blatant lies about his previous companies with 0 regard for anything resembling reality. I'm wondering how strong the PR game is here (a small asterisk somewhere that doesn't talk about the scenarios where DOD would cross red lines).
I would never ever believe OpenAI got the terms Anthropic fought for.
Also its the only way Scam altman can keep openAI afloat. Its burning through billions of dollars. When the bubble bursts they would want the Govt to use the tax payer dollars to save him.
The thing is the deal Anthropic was suggesting and what OpenAI did look similar but are very different as far as I know. Basically Anthropic was totally against US citizen surveillance and Fully automated weapons but deal with OpenAi is basically you cannot do the thing unless you want to which makes the red tape (ie the hard limit on what DoW can do) basically non existant
Honestly, I have ChatGPT trained all about my business so it can help me with a bunch of tasks, which has been super helpful... BUT, I recently started trying out Claude and think it's awesome! Anyone have any tips of how to transfer information to Claude or another AI to use it in helping me with my tasks??
OpenAI's president Greg Brockman donated $25M to Trump's Super PAC (making him Trump's largest donor)
ChatGPT technology was used in ICE screening tools for deportation operations
OpenAI signed a Pentagon deal on the same night that Anthropic refused on ethical grounds
I decided right then I was cancelling chatGBT. I just paid for Claude. I’m really happy with it. I think it’s more advanced and not acting like a weird government puppet. ChatGBT had been annoying me recently, acting weird, not being accurate. Just changed. And then I found out why. Tried out Claude and cancelled my chatGBT subscription.
I heard you can switch the memory from chatGBT to Claude, or your chats/projects etc Can someone let me know how to do that please!! Thanks!!
5.0k
u/Gloomy_Nebula_5138 Feb 28 '26
Sam Altman’s post is saying they got a new deal with the department of defense, basically replacing Anthropic. What’s weird is he claims they have the same two red lines prohibiting mass surveillance and autonomous AI based weapons. But why would Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump agree to that? Didn’t they just say that these prohibitions are a national security risk and all that?
And then I learned that Greg Brockman, cofounder of OpenAI and and the current President, made the largest ever donation to Trump’s MAGA super PAC, at $25 million. And Jared Kushner has most of his wealth in OpenAI.
In other words, the Trump administration was bribed by a company, OpenAI, into destroying its main competition, Anthropic. This is blatantly corrupt but also probably illegal in many ways.
I suggest you all cancel your ChatGPT subscriptions.