Anthropic’s $200 million contract with the Department of Defense (DOD) broke down last week after the two parties failed to come to an agreement over the degree to which the military could obtain unrestricted access to Anthropic’s AI.

When the DOD made a deal with OpenAI instead, it seemed that the military’s relationship with Anthropic would come to a close — but new reporting from the Financial Times and Bloomberg say that Amodei resumed negotiations with Pentagon official Emil Michael.

These talks are reportedly part of an attempt to compromise on a contract that outlines how the Pentagon can continue to access Anthropic’s AI models.

It would be a surprise to see Anthropic eek out a new deal, given how much vitriol has been exchanged among the parties involved.

But a compromise could still hold appeal for both sides — the Pentagon already relies on Anthropic’s technology, and an abrupt switch to OpenAI’s systems would be disruptive.

The dispute began when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei voiced concern over a clause that allowed the military to use Anthropic’s AI for “any lawful use.

” Amodei asserted that the company would not allow for its technology to be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weaponry and wanted the contract to more clearly prohibit those uses. When Anthropic refused to comply, the DOD turned around and struck a deal with OpenAI instead.

Since then, figures on both sides have been open about their frustrations.

Michael called Amodei a “liar” with a “God complex. ” Amodei threw some jabs of his own at the DOD and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman in a message reportedly sent to Anthropic staff this week, calling the OpenAI deal “safety theater” and the messaging around it “straight up lies. ” “The main reason [OpenAI] accepted [the DOD’s deal] and we did not is that they cared about placating employees, and we actually cared about preventing abuses,” Amodei wrote in the memo

Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding claims. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Claim Quality:
✓ Healthy Claim - No fallacies or contradictions detected
⚠️ Minor Issues - Has contradictions or minor fallacies
🚨 Serious Issues - Multiple contradictions or severe fallacies
Quality Criteria: Claims are evaluated for logical fallacies and contradictions with other news sources. Green highlights indicate healthy claims suitable for reference.
Source