Speaking of friction, let's talk about
your refusal to allow the military to
remove safety guardrails from Claude. I
don't want to get into the extensive
details and back and forth here because
other journalists are covering this on a
daily basis. But what was the crux of
that decision?
>> Yeah, so I would I would say on DOD or
DOW, you know, to be honest, we actually
had worked with them, right? So, you
know, we we had provided our models and
you know, I'm I I'm actually believer
and Danielle is a believer that we we do
need to defend our country, but you
know, we we felt it's not worth
defending the country if we do things
that go against the values of this
country.
And there were two use cases that we
were uncomfortable with that we felt
went against the values of this country.
And and that was fully autonomous
weapons. So, you can imagine like a
drone army that you know, one person has
their finger on the button and you don't
have human soldiers. You have a you
know, you have a drone army and you have
AI powering this. And then and then uh
domestic mass surveillance, which is,
you know, spying you know, using the
power of the government to spy on
Americans. And and we thought those were
pretty reasonable things not to allow.
Uh and you know, unfortunately,
the Pentagon
uh didn't feel that way. And and so we
just we just couldn't agree to that. All
the other companies have agreed to that
now, but I
you know, I I we we all met as
co-founders. We said, you know, holy
this could be really bad for the
company, but you know, we can't do this,
right?
>> agreed.
>> Everyone ever we we just we had you
know, we had a meeting around a table
like this and you know, we just said
>> Was that a dark night of the soul kind
of moment? What what what what was
everybody willing to stick to those
principles or did some people have to be
convinced or did you know going in that
this is this is the end of
>> The co-founders believed this
unanimously. Like there there was a
sense of like of like, you know, well,
you know,
all right. I wish they hadn't done this,
but if they're going to do it, bring it
on.
>> Weren't you scared of what would happen
to you?
>> Yes.
>> [laughter]
>> Yes.
>> Were you scared of what would happen to
you?
>> Yes. I mean, I think I think the thing
that It was It was a hard time. I mean,
I don't think we want to sugarcoat that.
It was a stressful time at the company,
but I think a thing that Dario
>> it could be the end of the company?
>> I think it crossed our minds. Yeah. I
think um
I think Dario and I and the co-founders
though,
the thing that we all had in common was
we just felt like this was the right
thing to do.
>> You were willing for it to be the end of
the company to stand up to your
principles.
>> I think the reason we founded Anthropic
was
our commitment to our values and the
ethics that we chose to work with.
>> And it felt like in the process of
sacrificing those values, we wouldn't
have been the company that we had
started, if that makes sense.
>> It It It you know, the the way it
happened
>> What did you think would be the So I'm
sure if you're sitting around the table,
you're looking at the best-case scenario
and the worst-case scenario. And in that
moment, it doesn't look like there is a
best-case scenario. So what was the
worst-case scenario?
>> At various times, they had made claims
that they could stop other companies
from doing business with us, right? Not
just stop us from working with the
government or being part of other
companies' contracts with the
government, but that they could stop
other companies from doing business with
us entirely.
>> Period. So you're not
>> Period. Not only you're not doing
business with the government, you're not
doing business with anybody Anybody else
that does business with you.
>> Yeah, or you can't do business with
anyone that does business with the
government in any way, which ends up
being everyone or everybody, right? Um I
think the attitude we had was
look, this is really screwed up.
Everyone knows this is wrong. Lots of
people are going to be on our side.
We think this is going to work out okay,
but man, are we not sure. You know,
there were moments there where it was
like, oh man, you know, are are we
wrong? Is this going to be the end of
the company? Like
>> What were you thinking, Daniela?
>> You know, I just keep coming back to the
co-founders
felt like it was just the right thing to
do. I think Anthropic's view has always
been that we are about policy and not
politics.
>> Yeah.
>> And Anthropic has leaned in, I think,
very early before we even had a product
to the fact that, you know, we think
that the role of government in the
development and thoughtful regulation of
artificial intelligence is going to be
incredibly important. I think AI
companies will have to work with the
federal government, with state
governments, internationally, with with
NGOs. And I think our view was always,
look, this is really about the
substance. This is not a political
disagreement. This is a policy
disagreement. And I think in some ways
that in it's not to say it was easy, but
I think it made our decision easier
because we felt strongly, look, this is
the right thing to do. These are the
right red lines. To Dario's point, we've
we were actually the first AI company to
work closely with national security
because we felt that that was in line
and in keeping with our values, except
in these two areas that we felt could
have the potential to compromise
democratic values.
>> It's so interesting
because most people don't get a decision
at that scale that they have to make
that they have to rely on their
principles and their values. Um and and
you're literally risking a multi-multi
billion-dollar company.
But it all goes back to how you were
raised and what how those principles
were formed in you before you had a big
decision like that.
>> know, what we talked about before we
ever started the company, what's it you
know, would our past selves be proud of
ourselves if we if we gave in here, if
we compromised? Like I I you know, I I I
that that made the decision very clear,
right?
>> And I I will say, I mean, it wasn't
nearly as, you know, publicly covered,
but I think Anthropic has had, you know,
smaller decisions along the way that
felt like they they laddered up to this.
I mean,
>> Yeah.
>> now it looks so obvious in retrospect.
>> that because because to get to a big
decision like this in a moment like that
where you have everyone around the table
and have to it means the that that life
the life force is the way the universe
works is that you would have had other
decisions other decisions other
decisions that laddered to that moment.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> I think there are probably three I can
think of off the top of my head.
>> ask you that.
>> Dario might have others as well, but I
think, you know, one which, you know,
now feels sort of very obvious, but was
a bigger discussion at the time was the
no ads decision. So, as you can imagine,
I think for the co-founders, for me and
Dario, it was not controversial at all.
We said, "Look, we think the incentive
the incentives are wrong. AI is
different. People have very private
conversations with these AI models.
People upload their health information.
They ask questions about their children.
They ask
>> Certainly finances.
>> Finances. They talk about, you know,
>> Medical information. Medical finances,
yeah.
>> Challenges they might be having with an
important person in their life. It's I
think we
want to treat our customers' data with
the utmost privacy and respect. And so,
for the co-founders, it was never a
question. We said, "Look, we don't want
to do ads, but there were quiet forces
that, you know, within the company or
investors who were like, "Hey, this is a
great source of revenue. This is how
Google and and Facebook and basically
every company that has a big user base,
you know, that's just how it's done.
That's how you make money." And we just
said, "Like, sorry, that's just not how
we're going to do things. We'll find
another way."
>> That was That was one of the big ones,
okay.
>> Yes, that was that was one of the big
ones.
>> You have one?
>> I can think of a couple. One is, uh, you
know, there was this time, I think, in
2025,
um, you know, probably the whole year of
2025, the sentiment in tech was, "Let's
go ahead, right? Let's Let's go ahead
with the technology like, you know,
worrying about risks, you know, they're
all kind of politicized language about
why it's bad to slow down and be
careful. And so, there was a moment in
the middle of 2025
where, you know, there was a bill being
considered in Congress that would have
banned all regulation of AI by states
and wouldn't have put in any federal
regulation of AI either. So, basically
it would have banned
all regulation of the technology.
>> I remember hearing about this.
>> And And we, you know, we were trying to
decide what to do. We definitely didn't
support it, but the question was, do we
just sit there and say nothing? Or do we
speak out against it? And all kinds of
people said to us, "No, it'll be
terrible. You'll break all your
political relationships. All the other
companies will hate you if you speak out
against it." Um and actually some of
that did happen when we we spoke out
against it. Um
uh but, you know, we decided that this
was an area that we had to speak up,
that was central to the values of the
company. So, I wrote an op-ed in The New
York Times saying this is a bad idea. We
should You know, that's about as loud as
you can be. And that bill got voted down
in the Senate 99 to 1.
>> [laughter]
>> Yeah.
>> So, you know, we we were clearly on the
right side.
Clearly on the right side here.