OpenAI Steals $200M Contract in Anthropic vs. Pentagon Battle

President Barack Obama. Virginia, we are counting on you. Republicans want to steal enough seats in

Congress to raid the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years. But you can stop

them by voting yes by April 21st. Help put our elections back on a level playing field and let

voters decide not politicians. Vote yes by April 21st. Paid for by Virginians for fair elections.

Liberty Mutual customizes your car and home insurance. And now we're customizing this rush hour

ad to keep you calm, which could help your driving. And science says therapy is great for a healthy

mindset. So enjoy this 14 second session on us. I think you've done everything right and

absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, anything that hasn't gone your way could probably be blamed

on your father. Not being emotionally available because his father wasn't emotionally available

and so on. And now that you're calm and healing, you're probably driving better too.

Liberty Liberty Liberty Liberty. Welcome to the podcast. I'm your host Jayden Schaeffer.

Today on the show, we have some latest advancements in the whole story between the showdown of

Anthropic and the Department of War, the Pentagon. They've essentially been they're moving to

designate them as a supply chain risk. And it looks like Anthropic may have been played by Sam

Altman and OpenAI who have swooped in and taken the contract that the Department of War has just

canceled. So anyways, there's a whole bunch of drama in there. We're going to cover all of that

on the podcast. Before we do, if you want to try the latest models from Anthropic or from Chat

GPT or Gemini or even audio models like 11 labs, I'd love for you to try out my startup,

which is aibox.ai. You could access to over 40 of the top audio image text models. And we've

just completed an entire overhaul and redesign of the platform to make this streamlined,

simpler and more efficient for you as well as added an entire capability for you to describe a

tool or workflow you'd like to build and have our AI tool builder automatically create it for you.

So if you want to go try that out, it's aibox.ai. It's 899 a month. And we even have a 20% discount

if you get an annual fee. So subscription. So you can go check it out at aibox.ai. All right,

let's get into the story. So over the last two weeks, there's been this really high stakes

confrontation going on between Anthropic and the Department of Defense or the Department of War.

I can't remember what we're calling it nowadays. This is peak Hegseth and it's kind of under Donald

Trump. And basically the center of this whole argument is a question. I think that is going to be

really important for how AI is used inside of government going forward in the future. And that is

kind of who is, you know, who's in control of these AI systems that are powering the most powerful

national defense systems. So Anthropic CEO Dario Amadeo, he said, like you basically even this big

statement where he's basically saying he doesn't want his AI models to be used for two specific

things, mass domestic surveillance of Americans and also fully autonomous weapons that select and

engage targets without human involvement. So those are kind of his two red lines. And between,

and you know, between those two things, he said that look, we can't keep supporting the military

on these different use cases that they might be pursuing. And so he kind of put safety,

safety guards and guardrails into what Anthropic is capable of doing so that the government can't

do that. Now, the Pentagon's position is also, I mean, they're the very direct on what they want.

So the Secretary Hague set basically is arguing in the Department of Defense shouldn't be constrained

on their use cases by the internal policies of an AI company. Now, on the one hand, I agree with

Anthropic in a sense that I don't want the government doing mass surveillance of Americans with AI

systems. And I also agree that, you know, fully autonomous AI that goes and executes, you know,

kill shots or whatever without a human intervention is very, you know, a very crazy kind of

ethical boundary that I don't think we want to we want to get into. So I don't really like either

of those two use cases. But on the other hand, I do see the argument that, you know, if we have

these, you know, these AI vendors that are kind of making their own rules and perhaps those two

are good red lines, right? Well, what happens in the future when Anthropic says, actually,

we don't want these to be used for any of these other, you know, military use cases, like, you

know, war planning or strategies or anything that could contribute to someone dying in the future.

Like you could see this essentially being if their policy shifts and all of a sudden, like the US

Department of Defense is, you know, integrating this AI system into all of their different systems

for the military. And all of a sudden, they changed, you know, the internal policies of their

company, then all of a sudden, the capabilities of the military get nerfed. It doesn't seem like a very

safe place for the government to be out. And I think there should be a broad like overall kind

of conversation from Congress and from probably voters on what we want AI to be able to do and

what we want the military to be able to and how we how we go about a lot of these things. But at the

same time, I don't really like, you know, although I don't like those two use cases that Anthropic has

kind of redlined, I also don't really like the fact that Anthropic can redline use cases for the

military. And right now, those seem like good ones, but in the future, they could be bad or, you

know, they could, I mean, like you could even theoretically in a conspiracy theory world, which I

also love. Let's say China decides to take a huge stake in Anthropic. I'm sure the US government

will let that happen blah, blah, blah. But like let's just say via some, you know, maybe they get

some investors in Saudi Arabia or whatever, right? Let's just say there's a way that they could get

some sort of control into Anthropic. And then they could make some sort of policies that directly,

you know, negatively impact the government. I just don't like the, I just don't like the rules

coming from the companies themselves, which are, you know, we know that those are sort of

manipulatable. You can you can buy up board seats and whatever else. So I just, I just don't like

that concept. Okay. And even though I think that probably their causes are are just or good

perhaps. Okay. So this whole thing escalates quite a lot to the point where President Trump

directed federal agencies to stop using Anthropics products. He said, you know, basically there's

kind of like this six month transition period. And then right after that, Secretary Hegseth

designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security, which is basically black

listing them from doing business with the military. And even potentially with contractors that

are tied to the military. Anthropic said that they hadn't been, they hadn't received any sort of

formal notice. And they were, you know, they were going to challenge this kind of designation

in court. And so there's, you know, obviously all of this drama going on. And I think it's

especially important considering we know that while all of this was happening, the US government

was leading up to their bombing of Iran with forces in Israel. And evidently, they didn't want,

you know, kind of mid operation their AI systems to be cut or them to have some sort of issue there.

So it seems like this was probably a role, you know, it's like they have to have this big

public beef with an AI company doing work with the military before they can, you know,

launch their next military strike, which is interesting considering we know that Anthropic was

used heavily for the capture of Nicholas Maduro for that mission. And so it seemed like, you know,

before they wanted to launch their full, their full attack on Iran, they also wanted to make sure

that they had AI models to back up their operations, which is really crazy if you think about it.

I think there was a lot of implications that were really big in in everything that was happening

in Anthropic had received Department of Defense contracts. And we also had, by the way,

OpenAI and Google that got a bunch of those as well last year. And so I think there was about

a $200 million contract that got canceled from Anthropic. And what's interesting is within hours

of this kind of new federal directive, you know, targeting Anthropic, OpenAI stepped up and Sam Altman

and their CEO went and posted it on X and he tweeted saying that OpenAI had reached an agreement

with the Department of Defense and would be taking over this Anthropic contract. I mean,

seemingly he didn't really outline it in that exact way, but I mean, we're between the lines

Anthrop gets dropped, OpenAI gets a new contract and basically they're taking over.

Sam Altman did say that he's like, look, we got a bunch of safeguards. We're not going to do

domestic mass surveillance and we're not going to force, you know, have us being used in autonomous

weapon systems, Yadiyada. OpenAI also said that they're going to deploy through a cloud-based API,

so they can retain control of the safety stack and they're going to embed personnel with

appropriate clearances to oversee deployment. Sam Altman also later said that the deal was kind

of rushed, but he framed as an attempt to de-escalate tensions and stabilize the relationship

between AI labs and the government. So he's like, look, we're making sure the government doesn't

hate all the AI, which obviously they don't. They just want to be able to use it.

I think this brought up a whole bunch of really interesting questions. Number one, if OpenAI

could secure an agreement with similar red lines, why was anthropic not able to do this?

I think there's some critics that are arguing that the difference came down to the deployment

architecture and some of the negotiation strategies. I think other people are also saying that the

dispute sort of basically became kind of symbolic. It turned into this clash between anthropic like

saying, you know, like adding new rules after they already had a deal in place and OpenAI being

like, look, these are sort of what we would like to negotiate and come into an agreement with.

And so I think people, some people are speculating that the government doesn't like, you know,

making a deal to use a service and then having all of these rules, all of a sudden red lines

added mid use case. I think the public reaction was pretty positive in anthropic

direction andthropics chatbot clawed. Went all the way to the top of Apple's App Store rankings.

It passed chat GPT and it was kind of the number one spot for AI models that people were using.

And I mean, kind of immediately after this big news story came out, I think beyond the kind of

immediate corporate fallout, right, because we know anthropic lost a $200 million deal and

OpenAI came and picked that up basically. But I think there's some strategic things we have to

think about. First of all, the US military already operates highly automated systems and the

Department of Defense, you know, directives allow AI enabled systems to select and engage targets

under certain review frameworks. So I think the question isn't whether AI is going to be used in

defense, but kind of how broadly and under whose constraints the US military already has its own

rules. They're kind of setting their own rules. And I'm not sure this is something that like

people are voting on perhaps that's something that we would do in the future. But the military

already sort of has its own rules and kind of its ethical frameworks that they're looking at.

And I think they really don't like another AI lab telling them what they can or can't do in

regards to that. I think a lot of national security leaders are arguing that limiting access to

cutting-edge systems could place American forces at a disadvantage when, for example, China,

none of these questions of ethics and safety that anthropic is bringing up China obviously doesn't

care about any of them. Russia doesn't care about any of these things. And so I think one of your

geopolitical competitors are putting AI into their systems. We have the best AI models right now

with open AI and anthropic being built inside of America. But that doesn't mean that we'll have

the best forever. And if we kind of nerfed the capabilities of those theoretically,

and this is how the argument goes, that could not be positive. So our base could put us in a

disadvantage of China. Okay. So from that perspective, I think the Pentagon is kind of making an

argument that they don't want a single vendor to be able to tie their hands basically if something

is legal and they're allowed to do it. Okay. At the same time, anthropic has consistently

argued that technology is advancing so fast that government mechanisms haven't kept place.

A bunch of critics, such as Max T-Guard, are saying that the broader AI industry helped create

this vacuum by lobbying against binding federal regulation, preferring these sort of voluntary

safety frameworks. We see like open AI and anthropic all of them are like, look, this is our

safety framework. This is what we're doing. And so we don't really have any sort of enforceable

laws. It's mostly just people saying, look, we want to be safe and responsible. I think without

some of these like legal frameworks, the argument could be made that disputes like this are going

to be resolved through executive power and then contract leverage rather than legislation. So this

is something we'll be watching very closely. But in the meantime, it does appear that anthropic

has received a boost from just regular users as kind of they're kind of the underdog fighting

the government. And it seems like open AI has gotten a $200 million boost from just picking up

the contract and powering a lot of that technology, which could turn into higher contracts in the

future. So we'll see where this all plays out. Thank you so much for tuning into the podcast.

If you enjoyed this episode, I would love a rating or review wherever you get your episodes. It

helps the show out a ton just to be found by more incredible listeners like yourself. Thanks

so much for tuning in. And as always, make sure you go check out aibox.ai if you want to get

access to all of the top AI models that we talked about on the show in one place for 899 a month.

All right, catch you in the next episode. Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses,

monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to

progressive and save hundreds because progressive offers discounts for paying in full,

owning a home and more. Plus, you can count on their great customer service to help when you

need it so your dollar goes a long way. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save on car

insurance. Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates potential savings will vary,

not available in all states or situations. Are you really buying a car online on auto trader right now?

Really? At a playground? Yeah, really. Look at these listings from dealers. Wow,

your search can really get that specific. Really? And you just put in your info and bone.

Cars in your budget. Mom needs a second, honey. You can really have a delivered? Really? Or I can

pick it up with the dealership. One sec, sweetie. Mommy's buying a car. Uh, I think kid is walking

up the slide. Hi, all again. Really? Auto trader. Buy your car online. Really?