No possibility of further Anthropic talks: CTO at the Pentagon
Emil Michael on Thursday ruled out any negotiations with artificial intelligence company Anthropic after the U.S. defense establishment labeled the AI lab a supply-chain risk amid a dispute over how the U.S. military can use its technology.
Speaking in an interview with CNBC, Michael said there was no possibility of talks with the company. According to him, Anthropic’s leadership had shown through alleged leaks and what he described as bad-faith negotiations that they were not interested in reaching an agreement.
Anthropic did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
Last week, the United States Department of Defense officially designated Anthropic as a supply-chain risk. The decision effectively bans the use of the company’s technology by the U.S. military and prevents government contractors from deploying Anthropic tools in projects related to the U.S. armed forces.
Anthropic has challenged the move in court. The company filed a lawsuit earlier this week against the administration of Donald Trump, arguing that the government’s action is unlawful and could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.
The dispute is significant because Anthropic had previously made strong efforts to work with the U.S. national security community before many other AI companies entered the space. The company had positioned itself as a potential provider of advanced AI technology for government and defense applications.
Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei has stated that he is not fundamentally opposed to the use of artificial intelligence in weapons systems. However, he has argued that the current generation of AI technology is not yet reliable or accurate enough to be used for targeting decisions in autonomous weapons.
According to earlier Reuters reporting, Anthropic’s investors have been working to manage the fallout from the dispute with the Pentagon. A group that includes OpenAI and several of Anthropic’s investors has reportedly expressed concern about the U.S. government’s decision, warning that the designation could disrupt the broader AI industry and its relationship with national security agencies.
