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

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 plagued 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 ChatGBT 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 he basically made 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 very direct on what they want. So the Secretary Hegseth basically is arguing 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 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 the policy shifts and all of

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 do 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 is 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 would ever 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 Anthropic's

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 blacklisting 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 and core. 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 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 everything that was happening. Anthropic had received Department

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, 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. Anthropic 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 safe guards.

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, yada yada. 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 deescalate 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

saying 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. So I think some

people are speculating that the government doesn't like making a deal to use a service and then

having all of these rules all of sudden red lines added mid use case. I think the public reaction

was pretty positive in Anthropic's direction. Anthropics Chatbot Claude went all the way to

the top of Apple's App Store rankings. It passed ChatGPT and it was kind of the number one spot

for AI models that people were using. I mean, kind of immediately after this big news story came

out. I think beyond the kind of immediate corporate fallout 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 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. I'm not sure this is something that 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 be

not be positive. So our base can put us at 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 Tigard 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

you know, 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 to go check out

aibox.ai. If you want to get access to all of the top AI models that we talk about on the show

in one place for 899 a month. All right, catch you in the next episode.