世界159万人都看到了，川普下令封杀“最有良心”AI 后，ChatGPT 入驻白宫，我们杀人没有底线！！

❝

开头还是介绍一下群，如果感兴趣PolarDB ,MongoDB ,MySQL ,PostgreSQL ,Redis, OceanBase, Sql Server等有问题，有需求都可以加群群内有各大数据库行业大咖，可以解决你的问题。加群请联系 liuaustin3 ，（共3400人左右 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +5 + 6 + 7 + 8 +9）(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8群已经爆满  9群 300+，开10群PolarDB专业学习群110+)

最近一则新闻，让我看完不寒而栗。美国总统川普，要求美国军方和联邦政府停止使用当前最安全的AI系统 Anthropic，而让毫无底线的Chatgpt 入驻，就因为董王要求，利用AI 杀人不需要底线，不需要安全的要求，被Anthropic拒绝了。

特朗普政府下令联邦机构停止与 AI 巨头 Anthropic 业务往来

特朗普政府已下令联邦机构及与军方合作的承包商停止与 Anthropic 的业务往来，此前该公司拒绝允许五角大楼无限制地使用其人工智能技术。

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普周五下午在 Truth Social 上发帖称，包括五角大楼在内的政府机构有六个月的时间逐步停止使用 Anthropic 的产品。国防部长皮特·海格塞斯随后在 X 上表示，Anthropic 将被视为“供应链风险”——这种称号通常保留给被认为是外国对手延伸的企业。

这一戏剧性的举动标志着这家领先的 AI 公司与政府之间长达一周的对峙达到顶峰，这可能会塑造这项快速发展的技术在未来的使用方式。

五角大楼在其机密网络上使用 Anthropic 的 Claude AI 系统，并希望能够将其用于“所有合法用途”。但 Anthropic 为五角大楼划定了两条红线：Claude 不得用于自动武器，也不得用于对美国公民的大规模监控。

五角大楼声称其无意将 AI 用于此类用途，但表示需要自由使用其获得许可的技术。

Anthropic 与五角大楼的合作详情

Anthropic 的 Claude 是第一个在军方机密网络上运行的 AI 模型。该公司去年夏天与五角大楼签署了一份价值高达 2 亿美元的合同。而 OpenAI 等其他主要 AI 公司仅在非机密网络上与五角大楼达成协议。

对 Anthropic 业务的影响

失去 2 亿美元的合同对于最近估值约 3800 亿美元的 Anthropic 来说并不会构成生存威胁。更大的风险是“供应链风险”的定性，这意味着任何与美国军方合作的公司都必须证明他们在与五角大楼的合作中不涉及任何与 Anthropic 相关的内容。

这个世界有人评良心做事，有人就无法无天

OpenAI 在Anthropic 拒绝了美国军方和董王的要求后，就进入美国军方和董王的局，随着Anthropic因坚持安全原则而被排挤出政府合作范围，专家担心“最具有安全意识的参与者”已不在现场。OpenAI在Anthropic被禁后迅速补位签署协议，虽然后来因被指责“投机且草率”而被迫修改合同条款以增加透明度，但这反映出政府倾向于选择更顺从其扩张性要求的合作伙伴，而非遵循最严格伦理标准的伙伴。 总而言之，美国政府通过“国家安全”这一名义，正试图打破AI技术本应遵循的伦理界限。这种对“全权访问”**的追求和对伦理护栏的排斥，不仅可能导致AI在战场上的失控，更潜藏着利用高科技手段对国内民众进行侵权监视的巨大风险。

所以呢，董王如果说，去杀人，去暗杀，给我来一个计划，OpenAI应该可以满足，川普的要求对吗？

下面附带 CBS NEWS 采访 Anthropic  CEO 整体文字。非常敏感，还是以英文的方式存在吧！

You are dario on the day, the CEO of anthropic that, right? That's correct, right.Well I my best question to you is why won't you?

Without restrictions to the us government.Yeah, so, you know, we should maybe back up a bit for a little bit of context. So, um, you know, anthropic actually has been the most lean forward of all the AI companies in working with the us government and working with the us military. We were the first company to, you know, put our models on the classified cloud.

We were the first company to make.Custom models for national security purposes were deployed across the intelligence community and military for applications like cyber, you know, combat support operations, various things like this. And you know, the reason we've done this is, you know, I I believe that we have to defend our I believe we have to defend our country from autocratic adversaries like China and like Russia. And so we've been we've been very you know, we've been very lean forward. We have a substantial, you know, public sector team public sector team a but a you know, I have always believed that you know, as we defend ourselves against our autocratic.

Adversaries, we have to do so in ways that defend our democratic values and preserve our democratic values and so we have said to the department of war they are, we are okay with all use cases, basically 98 or 99% of the use cases they want to do.

Except for two that we're concerned about, one is domestic master there worried they are you know, a things possible with AI or the possible the example of this is something like taking a data collected by private firms, having it bought by the government and analyzing en MAS by AI that actually isn't illegal it was just never.

Before the era of AI, so there's this way in which domestic mass surveillance is getting, is getting ahead of the law of the technology is advancing so fast that it's out of step with the law.

That's case number one.Case number two is fully autonomous weapons. This is not the partially autonomous weapons that are used in Ukraine or or you know, could potentially be used in Taiwan today. This is the idea of making weapons that fire without any human involvement.

Now, even those I think that, you know, they, you know, our adversaries may at some point have them. So perhaps, you know, they may, they may at some point be needed for the defense of democracy, but we have some concerns about them. First, the AI systems of today are nowhere near reliable enough to make.

Fully autonomous weapons, um, you know, anyone who's worked with AI models understands there's a basic unpredictability to them that in a purely technical way we have not solved.

And there's an oversight question, too, if you have a large army of drones or robots that can operate without any human oversight, where there aren't human soldiers to make the decisions about who to target, who to shoot at, that that presents concerns and we need to have a conversation about.

About how that's overseen and we haven't had that conversation yet and so we feel strongly that, you know, for, for, you know.

Those two use cases should should not be allowed.The Pentagon has told us that they.Because.Principle to these two restrictions and they wanted to strike a deal, why couldn't an agreement be reached? So there were, you know, that there were kind of several stages of this all done quickly and kind of all ah, you know, determined by the kind of three day, you know, the, the kind of very limited window to give us an ultimatum to, you know, to agree to their terms in three days or you know, designated a supply chain risk defense production act, I guess we'll get to that later, but during that time.

There were a few back and forth, you know, at one point they sent us, um, language that, you know, appeared on the surface to, ah, meet our terms, but it had all kinds of language like if the Pentagon deems it appropriate or, you know, a or, you know, or to do anything to just do anything in line with laws so he didn't actually see, actually can seee in any meaningful way, and there were further steps of it that also did not concede in any meaningful way.

We have wanted to strike a deal since the beginning, if you want to get a sense of the Pentagon's position of the Pentagon spokesman Sean parnell the day before.

Twe you know, he reiterated their position. We only allow all lawful use and this was the same as when they sent with they sent us, they sent us their terms. So, um, they they have not exceeded in and in India. They have not in any way agree agree to our exceptions in any way. The President posted today in response to the situation.

Their selfishness, referring to anthropic, is putting American lives at risk, our troops in danger, and our national security.

In jeopardy.What do you think? What's your response? So, you know, in, in the statement we issued yesterday and also in the one we issued today, we said that we were willing even if, even if the department of war or even if the Trump administration takes these unprecedented measures against us, this kind of supply chain designation that's normally used against.

Foreign adversaries, we have said that, you know, even if they take these extreme actions, we'll do everything we can to support the department of work to provide its technology for as long as it takes to off board us and and on board, you know, a competitor who's willing to do these things that, that, that we are not, that we are not willing to do. Yeah, so, so we have offered continuity. We're actually deeply concerned about this. We're deeply concerned about the the kind of interruption of service which is exactly what's happening when we're designated a supply chain risk.

Right. When we're designating a supply chain risk, they say like, you know, you have to be off all of our systems and I've talked to people on the ground, uniformed military officers who say this is essential, not having this will set us back six months, 12 months, maybe longer. And so that's why we've tried so hard to try to get it, to try to to try to get a deal. But again, the three day ultimatum, the risk to designate as a supply chain, the whole timeline has been driven by the department of war, not by us.

We are trying to provide continuity. We are trying to provide the services we are trying to provide. We are trying to reach a deal here. So then what does this mean for the safety of Americans?

Yeah, you know, I would I would say a couple things, you know, in in the short run it means and you know it's it's it's up to the department of war, you know, we're still trying to reach a we're still trying to reach a deal with them. I'm trying to talk to them.

You know, are they talking with you? You know, we've, we've, we've received various communications, we haven't seen anything that, you know, that that satisfies our we haven't seen anything that satisfies our concerns, but you know, I mean that just in the broad sense that we are still you know, we are still interested in working with them as long as it is in line with our red lines off sounds like.

You're still really far apart and now secretary headsset has determined you all a supply chain risk and.

Said what he said.So do you think it's possible at this point to come to an agreement? You know, I look an agreement requires both sides, um, we for, for our side are willing to serve national security of this country. We are willing to provide our models to all branches of the government, including the department of war, the intelligence community, you know, the more civilian branches of the government.

Under the terms that we've provided under our red lines, we are always willing to do that, right? You know, we're, we're, you know, we, you know, we don't, we don't take offense here. The reason we're providing our technology in this way is that we want to support the, you know, national security of the United States. We're not doing it, you know, for the sake of Pentagon officials. We're not doing it for the sake of a particular administration. We're doing it because it's good for the national security of the United States, and we're going to.

What do you think that it is better for and of a private company to have more say in how AI is used in the military than the Pentagon itself? So first I would say, and I think this is an important point.

No one on the ground.Has actually, to our knowledge, run into the limits of any of these of any of these exceptions? These are.

Excuse me, these are 1% of use cases and, and one set that we have seen no evidence on the ground have been done. Now, now again, I can't say what their plans are that we don't know. Um, but, but we have no evidence that these use cases have actually have actually run into trouble. We've spread across the department of war and other parts of the government without, without running into any of these problems. Now in terms of the one or two narrow exceptions.

I actually agree that in the long run we need to have a democratic conversation. In the long run, I actually do believe that it is congress's job. If, for example, you mess, there are possibilities with domestic mass surveillance, government buying of, you know, bulk data that has been produced on Americans, locations, personal information, political affiliation to build profiles. And it's now possible to analyze that with AI.

The fact that's legal, that seems like, you know, the judicial interpretation of the th amendment has not caught up or the laws passed by congress have not caught up, so in the long run we think congress should catch up with where technology is not the fastest moving body in the world.

And for right now, we are the ones who see this technology on the frontline. I would expect that the department of war, I would expect them to be thoughtful about these issues to, you know, to, to.

Proactively, you know, think, think about these issues and so I would have expected them not, not to have any concern and and you know, for us to have a, for us to have a conversation. But I think in the absence of that, you know, you know, we need to look at the technology, we need to look at what it's capable of in terms of reliability and we need to look at the ways in which it's getting ahead of the law and, and in which it's escaping the intent of the law. Those are some very narrow areas, but I think they're important. These are things that are fundamental to Americans, right? The, the, the the the right not to be spied on by the government.

Right? The, the right for our military officers to make decisions about war themselves and not turn it over completely to a machine. These are, these are fundamental principles,