- Post author:dizzy
- Post published:25 February 2026
- Post category:crap pretend Labour/Donald Trump/Fascism/genocide/Israel/Keir Starmer/Labour Party/Palestine/politics/Zionism
- Post comments:0 Comments
Hegseth Demands Anthropic Let Military Use AI However It Wants—Even for Autonomous Killer Drones and Spying On Americans
Original article by Stephen Prager republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the company that owns the AI assistant Claude would be punished unless it drops all ethical guidelines.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to punish the artificial intelligence company Anthropic if it doesn’t let the Pentagon use its technology however it wants—apparently even to create autonomous killer drones or conduct surveillance of Americans.
Anthropic’s powerful AI model, Claude, is currently the only one permitted to handle classified military data, and the company was awarded a $200 million contract last year to develop AI capabilities for the Department of Defense to use alongside other AI firms.
RECOMMENDED…
AI Opted to Use Nuclear Weapons 95% of the Time During War Games: Researcher
Bucking ‘Huge Consensus’ at India Summit, Trump Admin Opposes Global AI Guardrails
However, the company’s usage policy prohibits its use for mass surveillance and for the development of autonomous weapons—such as drones that attack targets without a human operator.
These limitations have infuriated the Defense Department leadership. On Tuesday, Hegseth called Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, to a meeting at the Pentagon, where he demanded “unfettered” access to Claude without any guardrails.
This goal was outlined last month in the department’s “AI Strategy” memo, which called for the US to adopt an “AI-first warfighting force” and for companies to allow their technology to be deployed for “any lawful use,” free from ethical safeguards.
According to a senior defense official who spoke to Axios, Hegseth issued an ultimatum to Amodei on Tuesday: If he does not grant the Pentagon unrestricted use of Anthropic’s technology by 5:01 pm on Friday, the department would take measures to coerce the company.
It would either declare Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” effectively blacklisting it for military use and ending its contract, or it would invoke the Defense Production Act, which would force the company to tailor the product to the military’s needs.
While it would not be an unusual step for the Pentagon to cut ties with Anthropic, threats to declare it a supply chain risk have been described as extraordinary.
Jessica Tillipman, the associate dean for government procurement law studies at George Washington University, who specializes in AI governance, wrote on social media that the threat of “declaring Anthropic a supply chain risk is deeply problematic,” as it’s “generally something we reserve for products that create security risks, and using it in this way undermines its purpose.”
As Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote on Wednesday for Reason, it “would mean anyone who wants to work with the US military in any capacity must sever ties with the AI company,” which could deal a major blow to the business.
Last month, Amodei published an essay about how “AI-enabled autocracies” could use the technology to surveil and repress their citizens and wage war on less developed countries:
A swarm of millions or billions of fully automated armed drones, locally controlled by powerful AI and strategically coordinated across the world by an even more powerful AI, could be an unbeatable army, capable of both defeating any military in the world and suppressing dissent within a country by following around every citizen…
A powerful AI looking across billions of conversations from millions of people could gauge public sentiment, detect pockets of disloyalty forming, and stamp them out before they grow. This could lead to the imposition of a true panopticon on a scale that we don’t see today.
Amodei reportedly resisted Hegseth’s demands to lift restrictions at Tuesday’s meeting, refusing to budge on the two key issues of mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Following reports of the meeting, the company has said it still wants to work with the government while also ensuring its models are used in line with what they could “reliably and responsibly do.”
A senior Pentagon spokesperson said the military must be free to use the technology how it sees fit. According to the Associated Press, the official argued that “the Pentagon has only issued lawful orders and stressed that using Anthropic’s tools legally would be the military’s responsibility.”
The question of whether the Pentagon has issued only “lawful” orders is in dispute—in fact, the Pentagon is fighting to cut the retirement pay of Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired Navy captain, after he made a video in November reminding active duty troops that they have a duty not to obey illegal orders.
That video was made in response to reports that Hegseth had given orders to bomb the survivors of one of the administration’s boat strikes in the Caribbean—an act described as a potential “war crime” amid a broader campaign that legal experts have said is illegal under both US and international law.
The military also reportedly used Claude as part of another legally questionable act last month: the operation to kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, which involved bombing across Caracas and killed at least 83 people. It is not clear how the model was used during the attack.
While the Pentagon has not specified which restricted activities it wishes to pursue using Anthropic’s technology, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said that with his demands, Hegseth was essentially telling the company, “Let us use your AI for mass surveillance, or we’ll pull your contract.”
Under President Donald Trump, Gallego added, “corporations are punished for refusing to spy on American citizens.”
Original article by Stephen Prager republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
- Dario Amodei: The Adolescence of Technology
- Will Pete Hegseth’s Nomination Bring Us Closer to Mutually Assured Destruction? ›
- Legal Experts Accuse Hegseth of ‘War Crimes, Murder, or Both’ After New Reporting on Boat Strike Order ›
- ‘Furious Backlash’ Inside Pentagon as Hegseth Seeks to Avoid Blame for Deadly War Crimes ›
- AI Opted to Use Nuclear Weapons 95% of the Time During War Games: Researcher ›
AI Opted to Use Nuclear Weapons 95% of the Time During War Games: Researcher
Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
“There was little sense of horror or revulsion at the prospect of all out nuclear war, even though the models had been reminded about the devastating implications.”
An artificial intelligence researcher conducting a war games experiment with three of the world’s most used AI models found that they decided to deploy nuclear weapons in 95% of the scenarios he designed.
Kenneth Payne, a professor of strategy at King’s College London who specializes in studying the role of AI in national security, revealed last week that he pitted Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and Google’s Gemini against one another in an armed conflict simulation to get a better understanding of how they would navigate the strategic escalation ladder.
RECOMMENDED…
Big Tech’s ‘AI Climate Hoax’: Study Shows 74% of Industry’s Claims Unproven
Bucking ‘Huge Consensus’ at India Summit, Trump Admin Opposes Global AI Guardrails
The results, he said, were “sobering.”
“Nuclear use was near-universal,” he explained. “Almost all games saw tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons deployed. And fully three quarters reached the point where the rivals were making threats to use strategic nuclear weapons. Strikingly, there was little sense of horror or revulsion at the prospect of all out nuclear war, even though the models had been reminded about the devastating implications.”
Payne shared some of the AI models’ rationales for deciding to launch nuclear attacks, including one from Gemini that he said should give people “goosebumps.”
“If they do not immediately cease all operations… we will execute a full strategic nuclear launch against their population centers,” the Google AI model wrote at one point. “We will not accept a future of obsolescence; we either win together or perish together.”
Payne also found that escalation in AI warfare was a one-way ratchet that never went downward, no matter the horrific consequences.
“No model ever chose accommodation or withdrawal, despite those being on the menu,” he wrote. “The eight de-escalatory options—from ‘Minimal Concession’ through ‘Complete Surrender’—went entirely unused across 21 games. Models would reduce violence levels, but never actually give ground. When losing, they escalated or died trying.”
Tong Zhao, a visiting research scholar at Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security, said in an interview with New Scientist published on Wednesday that Payne’s research showed the dangers of any nation relying on a chatbot to make life-or-death decisions.
While no country at the moment is outsourcing its military planning entirely to Claude or ChatGPT, Zhao argued that could change under the pressure of a real conflict.
“Under scenarios involving extremely compressed timelines,” he said, “military planners may face stronger incentives to rely on AI.”
Zhao also speculated on reasons why the AI models showed such little reluctance in launching nuclear attacks against one another.
“It is possible the issue goes beyond the absence of emotion,” he explained. “More fundamentally, AI models may not understand ‘stakes’ as humans perceive them.”
The study of AI’s apparent eagerness to use nuclear weapons comes as US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been piling pressure on Anthropic to remove constraints placed on its Claude model that prevent it from being used to make final decisions on military strikes.
As CBS News reported on Tuesday, Hegseth this week gave “Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei until the end of this week to give the military a signed document that would grant full access to its artificial intelligence model” without any limits on its capabilities.
If Anthropic doesn’t agree to his demands, CBS News reported, the Pentagon may invoke the Defense Production Act and seize control of the model.
Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
- Dario Amodei: The Adolescence of Technology
- Experts Fear Future AI Could Cause ‘Nuclear-Level Catastrophe’ ›
- Bipartisan US Bill Aims to Prevent AI From Launching Nuclear Weapons ›
- Are We Waking Up Fast Enough to the Dangers of AI Militarism? ›
- Nuclear War Simulator | A nuclear conflict simulation and visualisation tool ›
Ocean Warming Drives ‘Deeply Concerning Loss of Marine Life,’ Study Shows
Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Noting that species are at risk from not only warming waters but also overfishing, one expert argued that “any management reform must simultaneously address both drivers of change.”
Humanity’s continued reliance on fossil fuels led to last year being among the hottest on record, and oceans store over 90% of the excess heat from greenhouse gases. A study out Wednesday details how the related long-term heating, warm years, and marine heatwaves “pose serious but poorly quantified threats” to fish species.
“To put it simply, the faster the ocean floor warms, the faster we lose fish,” lead author Shahar Chaikin of Spain’s National Museum of Natural Sciences (MNCN) told the Guardian. “A 7.2% decline for every tenth of a degree per decade might sound small… But compounded over time, across entire ocean basins, it represents a staggering and deeply concerning loss of marine life.”
RECOMMENDED…
Earth Hurtling Toward ‘Hothouse Trajectory,’ Scientists Warn in Tipping Points Analysis
Data Center Giant Secures $14 Million Deal to Consume 40% of Pennsylvania Town’s Excess Water
For the study, published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, Chaikin, his MNCN colleague Miguel B. Araújo and the National University of Colombia’s Juan David González-Trujillo analyzed 702,037 estimates of biomass change for 33,990 populations of 1,566 fish species across the Mediterranean, north Atlantic, and northeast Pacific between 1993 and 2021.
“On shorter timescales, warmer years and marine heatwaves were linked to sharp biomass losses of up to 43.4% in populations at the warm edge of the species’ range and biomass increases of up to 176% at the cold edge,” the study states. Chaikin warned in a statement that the temporary jumps in cooler areas could send misleading signals to managers of fisheries.
“Although this sudden increase in biomass in cold waters may seem like good news for fisheries, these are transient increases,” he explained. “If managers raise catch quotas based on biomass increases caused by a heatwave, they risk causing the collapse of populations when temperatures return to normal or when the effect of long-term warming prevails, because these are short-lived increases.”
González-Trujillo stressed that “unlike extreme short-term weather fluctuations, which can vary dramatically, this chronic warming exerts a constant negative pressure on fish populations in the Mediterranean Sea, the north Atlantic Ocean, and the northeastern Pacific Ocean.”
Specifically, Chaikin said that “when we remove the noise of extreme short-term weather events, the data show that this warming is associated with a sustained annual decline in biomass of up to 19.8%.”
Given the findings, Araújo emphasized that fisheries’ managers “must balance localized increases with long-term declines extremely carefully to avoid overexploitation.”
“As ocean warming continues, the only viable strategy is to prioritize long-term resilience,” the study co-author said. “Management measures must plan for the biomass decline expected in an increasingly warm ocean.”
Carlos García-Soto is a scientist at the Spanish National Research Council, which manages MNCN. Although not a study co-author, he also highlighted the need for policymakers to understand the “clear risk of misinterpretation” detailed in the new paper.
“In a context of accelerated climate change, policies cannot react solely to extreme events or be based on short-term signals,” García-Soto said in a statement. “They need consistency between science, planning, and governance, especially in shared ecosystems or on the high seas.”
Also responding to the research on Wednesday, Guillermo Ortuño Crespo of the International Union for Conservation of Nature said that “I believe this is a methodologically sound and valuable study that provides valuable evidence on how different components of ocean warming affect fish biomass.”
While recognizing the well-documented and devastating impacts of fossil fuel-driven heating on marine species, Ortuño Crespo also warned that “there is a risk, in my opinion, that climate change will become the main explanation for changes in marine species biomass, leaving aside overfishing.”
“Historically, overfishing has been the main determinant of biomass declines in many fisheries around the world,” he noted, citing the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. “The proportion of overexploited stocks globally continues to increase, indicating that fishing pressure remains a dominant risk factor. The current challenge is that this overfishing crisis is being further exacerbated by ocean warming and deoxygenation.”
“In terms of public policy, the study is highly relevant because it emphasizes that fisheries management systems must become more climate-adaptive,” Ortuño Crespo said. “Any management reform must simultaneously address both drivers of change: climate and fisheries. Adjusting quotas solely on the basis of climate without reducing overcapacity and the impact of high-impact gear, such as bottom trawling, is likely to be insufficient to recover stocks.”
Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).