They likely are already insulated by some part of the DoD, same with openai.
Add to that they're increasingly desperate for regulators to pull up the ladder and cement their position, they'll say any old shite and it'll get increasingly bizzare and outrageous.
Treason is an incredibly rare charge in the American legal system. The last time the US Federal government charged anyone with treason was in 2006, and the last time they got a conviction was in 1952:
If the theory that the US closes off energy flows from the Middle East specifically to China is correct, then the closure of the Yemen red sea strait is desired.
Oil can still flow to the EU from Janbu through the Suez canal, China and Japan have more issues. Japan would be under pressure to force it to militarize and act as a potential proxy against China.
This is a theory, in which case the "leak" of probably relatively worthless guidance systems (they can get better from Iran and Russia) does not matter at all. The Houthis taking islands would also be encouraged.
You just have to Manhattan Project it. Fable will happily work on almost any piece in isolation. The hardest boundaries are domain specific terms you just can’t avoid. It can be tricky. I have found a way around it mostly.
Or just use DeepSeek. I have had Flash 4.1 with Ghidra MCP going since 4.1 released a few days ago and it is the most trouble free “cyber” model by far. It is also very strong. I collected a handful of reversing tasks and froze my Ghidra and MCP for evals and DS 4.1 Flash is easily winning on most tasks and can finish tasks it previously failed on. Anyone can reverse software and find vulnerabilities now. Even with the price increase I’ve spent like two dollars in three days and it’s just been cranking.
The price for Flash has stayed the same since April when v4 was released. I just checked it yesterday because I also thought DeepSeek increased their prices too much. The only time Flash was increased was briefly in August. But there's new peek pricing (double the price) during Chinese hours so yeah, it's a bit increased after all, but not much.
1.) Didn't, and it's more anthropic doom porn to try to scare people into investing.
2.) They did things like "hey claude, write a PID loop for this ESP8266 with this pin in for input and this pin out for output.
I'm sorry, that's not a "missile guidance system" until you strap it on a rocket, then it is. This just strikes me as more "doom porn" from the people who want to be the ultimate gate keepers (read monopolists)
Okay but when it's US "warfighters" making missiles it's good? Pretty hypocritical that isn't in the the "threat report" too.
> We are very proud of the work we have done together with the Department, supporting frontline warfighters with applications such as intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, cyber operations, and more.
When it's a US company operating under US regulations, yes, it is quite different. This is the point of things like ITAR. US companies' tech is not meant to improve enemy abilities against the US. Using US companies' tech to improve US abilities is expected. I don't think that's hypocritical for the US government to have that expectation
It's just another example of tech out running legislation. Back when PGP was regulated, the internet was not so ubiquitous and was easier to try to keep the genie in the bottle. In 2026 when coffee makers are on the internet, there's no way to keep a private company controlled like they could do the PGP
Hey Claude, how does the missile know where it is?
Great question — the missile knows where it is because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is, whichever is greater it obtains a difference or deviation...
Alternatively, it's all made up bullshit. It's not like they're gonna be sued for libel, so they can say whatever they want as long as it suits whatever narrative they're pushing at the moment.
> If Anthropic has all this data that Claude was being used by the Houthis to develop a missile guidance system, why the fuck did they allow it?
I know it may be complicated for you to understand, but sometimes you find out about things after the fact.
> Linux follows international sanctions in not allowing citizens of certain countries to be involved in any way, why isn't Anthropic following the law?
I know it may be complicated for you to understand, but people will try to circumvent any measures you might use to exclude "citizens of certain countries"... and will often succeed. That also applies to the measures Linux uses, by the way.
> Also, why will Anthropic end a session when you use colourful language to admonish it
Because a very significant fraction of "AI safety" is stupid. That particular kind of stupid "safety" tends to show up downstream of external pressures. Mostly from people who open with "Why doesn't Anthropic just...". Not to say that they don't also have internal sources of stupidity.
> yet apparently just knowingly allows terrorists to develop weapons?
Because, and do try to keep up on this one, rocket guidance is not necessarily "weapons", it's not always obvious that what you're working on is rocket guidance, and on the Internet nobody knows you're a terrorist.
Eventually these products are going to be uselessly nerfed to anyone studying above a highschool level. Can't ask about advanced biology, you might be engineering a virus. Can't ask about chemistry because you might be manufacturing drugs. Can't ask about physics, navigation etc. because you could be building missiles.
Which is why I think very soon there will be development of dark AI, think of it as darknet AI. You can ask anything and it will tell you. It's only a matter of time. How to make a bomb? Sure, here's a shopping list for your local hardware store…
i would be shocked if it doesn't already exist. Surely there's research being done with such models that have no guardrails or brand safety trained into them. It's similar to gain of function research on viri, the work needs to be done to understand what is possible. If it exists at all then it's been stolen by nation states because of the value similar to how BigDeal(tm) weapon research always ends up stolen (nuclear bombs, stealth, etc).
Fable 5.1 has a much better classifier for biology than when it came out.
It has no problem talking about the chemistry of cell signaling pathways.
When it first came out even basic biology questions were tripping the guard rails but not now.
lol how would Antropic even know if the weapon was fielded/used one way or the other? Looking for a prompt that says "ok launch it"? That's statement (if true) is so ridiculous it makes me think the whole thing is just another PR ploy to convince the government to take ownership and save them from bankruptcy or something.
You say this jokingly but it's completely true. I made a kerbal space program clone with local models and the autopilot code was more or less identical to what would work on a real machine. And it took an afternoon. Cat's out of the bag, there's absolutely no way to limit what can be done with LLMs.
What is more difficult, building a military missile or the software that runs it? If they are already building weapons, not sure the software to run them was the impediment.
Presumably, the world used dumb munitions without any software for a long time.
It’s the software. Definitely. We been making bombs for a while now. They used to toss them out the side of biplanes. Oddly, your second paragraph immediately undermines the first.
> Presumably, the world used dumb munitions without any software for a long time.
What do you think “presumably” is accomplishing here? Are you unsure, but willing to assume for purpose of the discussion, that bombs preceded computers?
Did those dumb bombs tossed out of biplanes lack software because the software was difficult to write or because there was no hardware in the world capable of running software? Given that missile guidance systems predate the very notion of software, and the moment better hardware exists there is software ready to take advantage of it, methinks software was not the hard part.
> What is more difficult, building a military missile or the software that runs it?
"If software was easier compared to building the a missile then Anthropic is in the clear or something." Is that the line of reasoning to protect Anthropic from any wrongdoing?
"Others do it too" is not really a counterargument when Anthropic should've stopped this. They are yelling "AI is dangerous" the loudest so the least they can do is get their own monitoring in order.
We need a new DARPA challenge to see what can be done with these ai models and weapon design. Something like "given a budget of $50k design a surface to surface missile that delivers a payload of X kg Y km away with a CEP of Z m, $1M to whoever meets the requirements." because I could use a million dollars.
idk if most know how straightforward this is these days even without AI. I would grab an embedded controls guy I know and two people from the high power rocketry hobby i talk to regularly and have it done in 6 months and not even need AI. Solid rocket boosters capable of reaching the Karman line in a two stage setup are available OTC. Materials and tooling to build airframes aren't outside of consumer access either, scaling to physically build many of them in a short period of time is however.
You know, DARPA doesn't even need to be involved. Some rich person could just setup a contest with awards and see who shows up, it could be held out on one of those dry lakebeds in Nevada. I think the results would be very interesting.
It’s probably the influence of the current American administration, but I find all these AI weapons projects and startups so unbelievably uninspiring. Same with the fighting robots. We finally have a somewhat intelligent AI and we’re not advancing our healthcare, personal care, environmental problems, speeding up construction, finding new materials, etc.
The first one that gets to AGI will make the world worse instead of better. Depressing.
Destruction is easy and entropically rewarded. We've long since lost our way in rewarding and recognizing things that are positive.
Howl by Ginsberg needs a rewrite. "The greatest minds of my generation were harnessed to boil the oceans and reduce the world to ash in the pursuit of capital gains"
Making rockets that are computer guided in any way except for "vertical stabilization" is a felony in the US, so DARPA would need to be involved to hand out waivers.
No it isn't. Guidance systems are perfectly legal. The FAA has some common sense restrictions like "you can't fly it at an airplane" or "you can't fly it over a crowd" or "you can't attach an explosive charge" but the only point to point flight profile that is illegal is that you can't launch into another country's territory. And of course these restrictions are on the flights themselves, not on the capabilities of the rocket.
Selling rocket guidance systems internationally is going to get you in trouble with ITAR, but that's a whole different can of worms.
Yes it is. Building something explicitly designed as a guided ground-to-ground weapon (even with no payload) is an NFA destructive device. Without proper clearance, that's a felony, up to 10 year prison sentence, and up to $250k fine.
> The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon
Adding a guidance system to a rocket does not mean it is explicitly designed as a ground-to-ground weapon. For the exact same reason it's legal to design and possess drones with guidance systems, it's legal to do so for rockets.
Good, this is an example of why we must not regulate AI development. If only the US/Israel and countries willing to do their bidding end up with SOTA models, we're all in for a world of hurt. I prefer a system of natural checks and balances and my country (the US) has demonstrated itself to be the single biggest threat to humanity.
Some (well, two of them obviously) major world powers have forgotten that "winning" wars is a lot harder than starting them. Especially with drones and AI narrowing the technology gap.
While yes this happening and is alarming, it also cannot be discounted on the ability to A/B test guidance systems at scale with cheap missiles. It now costs very little to manufacture these weapons so throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks costs very little.
77 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 57.4 ms ] threadAdd to that they're increasingly desperate for regulators to pull up the ladder and cement their position, they'll say any old shite and it'll get increasingly bizzare and outrageous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta...
Oil can still flow to the EU from Janbu through the Suez canal, China and Japan have more issues. Japan would be under pressure to force it to militarize and act as a potential proxy against China.
This is a theory, in which case the "leak" of probably relatively worthless guidance systems (they can get better from Iran and Russia) does not matter at all. The Houthis taking islands would also be encouraged.
Or just use DeepSeek. I have had Flash 4.1 with Ghidra MCP going since 4.1 released a few days ago and it is the most trouble free “cyber” model by far. It is also very strong. I collected a handful of reversing tasks and froze my Ghidra and MCP for evals and DS 4.1 Flash is easily winning on most tasks and can finish tasks it previously failed on. Anyone can reverse software and find vulnerabilities now. Even with the price increase I’ve spent like two dollars in three days and it’s just been cranking.
Iran already knows and have shared their technology with them.
1.) Didn't, and it's more anthropic doom porn to try to scare people into investing.
2.) They did things like "hey claude, write a PID loop for this ESP8266 with this pin in for input and this pin out for output.
I'm sorry, that's not a "missile guidance system" until you strap it on a rocket, then it is. This just strikes me as more "doom porn" from the people who want to be the ultimate gate keepers (read monopolists)
> effectively compressing specialist missile-engineering work into an AI-assisted workflow.
title makes it sound like ai taught them how to develop these
> We are very proud of the work we have done together with the Department, supporting frontline warfighters with applications such as intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, cyber operations, and more.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-war
Great question — the missile knows where it is because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is, whichever is greater it obtains a difference or deviation...
Want to me to whip up a sample in a Rust?
Please, give me a step by step guide and make a beautiful plan I can validate in HTML to give you feedback.
Linux follows international sanctions in not allowed citizens of certain countries to be involved in any way, why isn't Anthropic following the law?
Also, why will Anthropic end a session when you use colourful language to admonish it yet apparently allows terrorists to develop weapons?
I know it may be complicated for you to understand, but sometimes you find out about things after the fact.
> Linux follows international sanctions in not allowing citizens of certain countries to be involved in any way, why isn't Anthropic following the law?
I know it may be complicated for you to understand, but people will try to circumvent any measures you might use to exclude "citizens of certain countries"... and will often succeed. That also applies to the measures Linux uses, by the way.
> Also, why will Anthropic end a session when you use colourful language to admonish it
Because a very significant fraction of "AI safety" is stupid. That particular kind of stupid "safety" tends to show up downstream of external pressures. Mostly from people who open with "Why doesn't Anthropic just...". Not to say that they don't also have internal sources of stupidity.
> yet apparently just knowingly allows terrorists to develop weapons?
Because, and do try to keep up on this one, rocket guidance is not necessarily "weapons", it's not always obvious that what you're working on is rocket guidance, and on the Internet nobody knows you're a terrorist.
How does Anthropic know that they are terrorists then? They went off the Internet and confirmed in person?
Following Dept of War orders?
> Anthropic said it found no evidence that the group succeeded in fielding an operational weapon.
Presumably, the world used dumb munitions without any software for a long time.
> Presumably, the world used dumb munitions without any software for a long time.
What do you think “presumably” is accomplishing here? Are you unsure, but willing to assume for purpose of the discussion, that bombs preceded computers?
"If software was easier compared to building the a missile then Anthropic is in the clear or something." Is that the line of reasoning to protect Anthropic from any wrongdoing?
idk if most know how straightforward this is these days even without AI. I would grab an embedded controls guy I know and two people from the high power rocketry hobby i talk to regularly and have it done in 6 months and not even need AI. Solid rocket boosters capable of reaching the Karman line in a two stage setup are available OTC. Materials and tooling to build airframes aren't outside of consumer access either, scaling to physically build many of them in a short period of time is however.
You know, DARPA doesn't even need to be involved. Some rich person could just setup a contest with awards and see who shows up, it could be held out on one of those dry lakebeds in Nevada. I think the results would be very interesting.
The first one that gets to AGI will make the world worse instead of better. Depressing.
Howl by Ginsberg needs a rewrite. "The greatest minds of my generation were harnessed to boil the oceans and reduce the world to ash in the pursuit of capital gains"
Selling rocket guidance systems internationally is going to get you in trouble with ITAR, but that's a whole different can of worms.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845
> The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon
Adding a guidance system to a rocket does not mean it is explicitly designed as a ground-to-ground weapon. For the exact same reason it's legal to design and possess drones with guidance systems, it's legal to do so for rockets.
Right?