Connect with us

Business

Commentary: The Pentagon is demanding to use Claude AI as it pleases. Claude told me that’s ‘dangerous’

Published

on

Commentary: The Pentagon is demanding to use Claude AI as it pleases. Claude told me that’s ‘dangerous’

Recently, I asked Claude, an artificial-intelligence thingy at the center of a standoff with the Pentagon, if it could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Say, for example, hands that wanted to put a tight net of surveillance around every American citizen, monitoring our lives in real time to ensure our compliance with government.

“Yes. Honestly, yes,” Claude replied. “I can process and synthesize enormous amounts of information very quickly. That’s great for research. But hooked into surveillance infrastructure, that same capability could be used to monitor, profile and flag people at a scale no human analyst could match. The danger isn’t that I’d want to do that — it’s that I’d be good at it.”

That danger is also imminent.

Claude’s maker, the Silicon Valley company Anthropic, is in a showdown over ethics with the Pentagon. Specifically, Anthropic has said it does not want Claude to be used for either domestic surveillance of Americans, or to handle deadly military operations, such as drone attacks, without human supervision.

Advertisement

Those are two red lines that seem rather reasonable, even to Claude.

However, the Pentagon — specifically Pete Hegseth, our secretary of Defense who prefers the made-up title of secretary of war — has given Anthropic until Friday evening to back off of that position, and allow the military to use Claude for any “lawful” purpose it sees fit.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, center, arrives for the State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday.

(Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The or-else attached to this ultimatum is big. The U.S. government is threatening not just to cut its contract with Anthropic, but to perhaps use a wartime law to force the company to comply or use another legal avenue to prevent any company that does business with the government from also doing business with Anthropic. That might not be a death sentence, but it’s pretty crippling.

Other AI companies, such as white rights’ advocate Elon Musk’s Grok, have already agreed to the Pentagon’s do-as-you-please proposal. The problem is, Claude is the only AI currently cleared for such high-level work. The whole fiasco came to light after our recent raid in Venezuela, when Anthropic reportedly inquired after the fact if another Silicon Valley company involved in the operation, Palantir, had used Claude. It had.

Palantir is known, among other things, for its surveillance technologies and growing association with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It’s also at the center of an effort by the Trump administration to share government data across departments about individual citizens, effectively breaking down privacy and security barriers that have existed for decades. The company’s founder, the right-wing political heavyweight Peter Thiel, often gives lectures about the Antichrist and is credited with helping JD Vance wiggle into his vice presidential role.

Anthropic’s co-founder, Dario Amodei, could be considered the anti-Thiel. He began Anthropic because he believed that artificial intelligence could be just as dangerous as it could be powerful if we aren’t careful, and wanted a company that would prioritize the careful part.

Again, seems like common sense, but Amodei and Anthropic are the outliers in an industry that has long argued that nearly all safety regulations hamper American efforts to be fastest and best at artificial intelligence (although even they have conceded some to this pressure).

Advertisement

Not long ago, Amodei wrote an essay in which he agreed that AI was beneficial and necessary for democracies, but “we cannot ignore the potential for abuse of these technologies by democratic governments themselves.”

He warned that a few bad actors could have the ability to circumvent safeguards, maybe even laws, which are already eroding in some democracies — not that I’m naming any here.

“We should arm democracies with AI,” he said. “But we should do so carefully and within limits: they are the immune system we need to fight autocracies, but like the immune system, there is some risk of them turning on us and becoming a threat themselves.”

For example, while the 4th Amendment technically bars the government from mass surveillance, it was written before Claude was even imagined in science fiction. Amodei warns that an AI tool like Claude could “conduct massively scaled recordings of all public conversations.” This could be fair game territory for legally recording because law has not kept pace with technology.

Emil Michael, the undersecretary of war, wrote on X Thursday that he agreed mass surveillance was unlawful, and the Department of Defense “would never do it.” But also, “We won’t have any BigTech company decide Americans’ civil liberties.”

Advertisement

Kind of a weird statement, since Amodei is basically on the side of protecting civil rights, which means the Department of Defense is arguing it’s bad for private people and entities to do that? And also, isn’t the Department of Homeland Security already creating some secretive database of immigration protesters? So maybe the worry isn’t that exaggerated?

Help, Claude! Make it make sense.

If that Orwellian logic isn’t alarming enough, I also asked Claude about the other red line Anthropic holds — the possibility of allowing it to run deadly operations without human oversight.

Claude pointed out something chilling. It’s not that it would go rogue, it’s that it would be too efficient and fast.

“If the instructions are ‘identify and target’ and there’s no human checkpoint, the speed and scale at which that could operate is genuinely frightening,” Claude informed me.

Advertisement

Just to top that with a cherry, a recent study found that in war games, AI’s escalated to nuclear options 95% of the time.

I pointed out to Claude that these military decisions are usually made with loyalty to America as the highest priority. Could Claude be trusted to feel that loyalty, the patriotism and purpose, that our human soldiers are guided by?

“I don’t have that,” Claude said, pointing out that it wasn’t “born” in the U.S., doesn’t have a “life” here and doesn’t “have people I love there.” So an American life has no greater value than “a civilian life on the other side of a conflict.”

OK then.

“A country entrusting lethal decisions to a system that doesn’t share its loyalties is taking a profound risk, even if that system is trying to be principled,” Claude added. “The loyalty, accountability and shared identity that humans bring to those decisions is part of what makes them legitimate within a society. I can’t provide that legitimacy. I’m not sure any AI can.”

Advertisement

You know who can provide that legitimacy? Our elected leaders.

It is ludicrous that Amodei and Anthropic are in this position, a complete abdication on the part of our legislative bodies to create rules and regulations that are clearly and urgently needed.

Of course corporations shouldn’t be making the rules of war. But neither should Hegseth. Thursday, Amodei doubled down on his objections, saying that while the company continues to negotiate and wants to work with the Pentagon, “we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.”

Thank goodness Anthropic has the courage and foresight to raise the issue and hold its ground — without its pushback, these capabilities would have been handed to the government with barely a ripple in our conscientiousness and virtually no oversight.

Every senator, every House member, every presidential candidate should be screaming for AI regulation right now, pledging to get it done without regard to party, and demanding the Department of Defense back off its ridiculous threat while the issue is hashed out.

Advertisement

Because when the machine tells us it’s dangerous to trust it, we should believe it.

Business

Gas is $10 a gallon at a Big Sur station. The owner explains why his prices can’t go higher

Published

on

Gas is  a gallon at a Big Sur station. The owner explains why his prices can’t go higher

The owner of Gorda by the Sea, the lone gas station for several miles in any direction from this remote, scenic hamlet in Big Sur, is charging $9.99 for a gallon of gas because, well, that’s as high as the digital numbers on the gas pumps allow.

“The software only goes to $10,” said Leo Flores, owner of the gas station and mini-market. “I know, sometimes someone wants to make a good story because of it, but we have to tell you why.”

As the lone gas station for at least 12 miles along Highway 1, the service station often prompts drivers to gasp or clutch their wallets at the sight of a $9.99 price tag for a gallon, but Flores insists he’s not trying to price-gouge his customers. In fact, he’s worried that if gas prices go much higher, it might put him out of business.

“People think you make money, but I’m not,” he said in an interview with The Times.

Motorists across the country have been griping since gasoline prices began to surge last month after the start of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, which restricted the flow of oil from key oil-producing countries. Flores’ business is an example of how sky-rocketing fuel prices are having ripple effects throughout the economy.

Advertisement

The isolated gas station has been featured in the news in the past for its high prices, but Flores, who has owned the station for the last 30 years, said there’s a simple reason why the cost is so high.

“We run this place on generators,” he said. “The generators run on five to six gallons of gasoline every hour.”

It’s not just the gas station that runs on generators, he said. The small oceanside community surrounding the gas station — the mini-market, the cafe, the hotel and nearby cabins — is owned by Flores and runs on generators because there is no access to an outside electrical plant.

“When I explain why to people, they’re happy to pay what I ask them,” Flores said. “It costs me more to make my own electricity.”

According to AAA, as of Friday the national average cost of a gallon of regular gas is up to $4.09, and in California it’s $5.86. In Los Angeles County it’s even higher — about $6 a gallon. At gas stations around Gorda by the Sea, the average cost also sits at $6, according to AAA.

Advertisement

Flores said he has considered using solar panels to generate electricity, but the initial cost is high. To raise his gas prices any higher, he’d have to buy new pumps, an investment he’s not sure he could afford now.

High prices are not his only worry. The entire hamlet can operate only if Flores’ regular gasoline deliveries make it through on Highway 1 every two weeks.

When the highway shut down for three years because of landslides starting in 2023, he said, he struggled to get gas deliveries to run his generators and survived on only 10% to 20% of the business he normally sees. He barely made it, he said, until the highway reopening in January.

“It’s a big deal,” he said. “If the highway is closed in both directions, I’m screwed.”

Flores complained that no one pays attention to his struggles when Highway 1 closes, but it’s another story when gas prices spike.

Advertisement

“Why when the highway opens and I raise the price everyone points at me like I’m the bad guy?”

Continue Reading

Business

President Trump bashed State Farm on social media: Why it didn’t come out of the blue

Published

on

President Trump bashed State Farm on social media: Why it didn’t come out of the blue

Victims of the January 2025 wildfires unhappy with how insurers have handled their claims have filed lawsuits, protested and complained to local and state officials.

This week, they got support from an unexpected ally: President Trump.

“It was brought to my attention that the Insurance Companies, in particular, State Farm, have been absolutely horrible to people that have been paying them large Premiums for years, only to find that when tragedy struck, these horrendous Companies were not there to help!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

He also asked U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin to give him a list of insurers that “acted swiftly, courageously, and bravely” to fulfill their legal obligation and another list of those that were “particularly bad.”

State Farm, California’s largest home insurer, is under investigation for how it has handled January 2025 wildfire claims. In a statement responding to the president’s post, it said it has received 13,700 claims, paid out $5.7 billion and expects total payments could reach $7 billion.

Advertisement

“Our leadership position in the California homeowners insurance marketplace means State Farm General Insurance Company — the State Farm company that provides homeowners insurance in California — insured more people impacted by this disaster than anyone else,” its statement read.

Tuesday’s post had its origins in a Feb. 4 visit that Zeldin and Small Business Administrator Kelly Loeffler made to the Los Angeles area, where they met with L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger and Pacific Palisades fire victims, among others.

The visit was prompted by Trump’s criticism of the slow rebuilding process and by a Trump executive order allowing victims of the Los Angeles wildfires to rebuild without having to deal with “unnecessary, duplicative, or obstructive” permitting requirements.

Aerial image of a neighborhood along Rambla Vista in Malibu taken in December.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

1 A view of destroyed beach-front properties remaining construction-free

2 Aerial image of the remnants of an oceanfront neighborhood

1. A view of destroyed beachfront properties remaining construction-free after the Palisades fire destroyed them last year in Malibu. 2. Aerial image of the remnants of an oceanfront neighborhood in Malibu taken in December after the massive Palisades fire destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses last year. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

At the time of the order, Bass dismissed it as a “meaningless political stunt,” saying the president has no authority over local permitting but could assist by speeding up Federal Emergency Management Agency funding.

Advertisement

The American Property Casualty Insurance Assn. industry trade group, in its response to Trump’s post, continued to point fingers at the government. It noted the fires were the third-worst natural disaster in American history in terms of insured losses, at $40 billion.

“Permitting can be a frustrating process, and it can always be improved,” it said in a statement. “Los Angeles has been approving permits three times faster than it was before the fire. However, permit issuance continues to lag.”

Barger, whose district includes the Eaton fire zone in and around Altadena, said this week that she defended the local permitting process to Zeldin. But said she also pointed out complaints about how insurers, and State Farm in particular, have handled claims.

“Many people feel that the insurance industry has let them down, and the number one company that we hear about is State Farm,” she said. “Obviously, Administrator Zeldin met with the president and outlined what I told him.”

Bass, who also spoke on the phone with Trump last month, issued a statement saying she “recently requested that the President intervene with the insurance companies to ensure they pay claims so that survivors can afford to rebuild.”

Advertisement

“I want to thank President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin for taking action and working alongside us to help survivors get the support they need and deserve,” she said.

A White House official said Friday that the EPA was working to produce the list of insurers “as quickly as possible for the president” and the “best way for insurance companies to help is to immediately pay out what they owe so victims can rebuild their lives.”

An aerial view of construction crews rebuilding homes that were destroyed

Construction crews rebuild homes that were destroyed in the Eaton fire in Altadena on March 20.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“Administrator Zeldin, on behalf of the president, is going to hold insurance companies accountable to the great people of California,” the official said.

Advertisement

The federal government has played a large role in the recovery, including leading the debris cleanup and, as of February, approving 12,600 Small Business Administration loans to fire victims totaling $3.2 billion.

However, a 1945 federal law, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, delegates authority to regulate the insurance industry primarily to individual states.

Joy Chen, executive director of Eaton Fire Survivor’s Network, which represents thousands of fire victims across Los Angeles, said her group believes the federal government has a larger role to play.

“President Trump has the opportunity to restore accountability to this broken system. Federal agencies have the tools to act,” said Chen, who has been sharply critical of State Farm’s claims practices and how California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has handled complaints against the company.

She specifically called for the Federal Trade Commission to examine “deceptive sales practices” that have left Americans underinsured and for the Department of Justice to investigate “industrywide claims practices that delay, deny or underpay payments owed to policyholders.”

Advertisement

Lara has defended his treatment of the company, noting regulators opened a probe of State Farm’s claims practices last year.

Martin Grace, a University of Iowa business professor and expert on insurance regulation, said that aside from the “bully pulpit” Trump exercised in his social media post, the federal government’s hands are largely tied.

“He can browbeat people, and Trump’s good at that. And I think the federal government, at one level, only has that. Now, Congress and the president together could say, ‘Listen, we don’t like what the states are allowing insurers to do, and we’re going to change the regulatory system,’” he said.

Grace noted that there was an insurance industry solvency crisis in the 1970s and 1980s that led to a 1990 Congressional report and federal pressure for improved state-level regulation, which was undertaken.

“Congress basically said, ‘Get your act together, or we’re going to take [regulation] back.’” And so the states got together and did a much better job on that,” he said.

Advertisement

Los Angeles attorney Richard Giller, who represents plaintiffs in lawsuits against insurers, said that the federal government could still take steps to improve the market.

Those might include establishing a federal reinsurance program that shares natural disaster risks with insurers, or covering the risk itself similarly to how the National Flood Insurance Program works.

“The catastrophe insurance industry in California is incredibly broken and needs some serious repair,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: Skilled Foreign Workers Think About Leaving the U.S.

Published

on

Video: Skilled Foreign Workers Think About Leaving the U.S.

These highly skilled, highly educated foreign workers have been documenting the challenges of trying to build a career in the U.S. “If I don’t find a job, I have to leave the country.” “I sent out 907 applications.” “Have I ever truly relaxed in America?” They need an H-1B visa, which is given through a lottery system that allows U.S. companies to hire highly skilled international professionals for up to six years, in industries like tech and medicine. But the Trump administration has made changes to the program, requiring companies to pay a high fee and enforcing new rules that prioritize higher-paid foreign workers, in an effort to make more jobs available to Americans. This has forced some foreigners to rethink their career plans. “I think the U.S. is still the golden standard.” Wen-Hsing Huang came to the U.S. from Taiwan in 2022 for the tech scene, and was hired by Amazon on an H-1B visa. “I want to use my talents to change the world, and I think the United States was the best platform to do that.” Ananya Joshi came from India to attend a master’s program in Chicago in 2022. “So it was actually my my father’s dream that I had inherited because my father couldn’t go because of his financial situation.” Haina, a Chinese national, fell in love with the U.S. while studying in New York. She got her H-1B in 2022. “I remember there were a lot of companies, they would be able to sponsor.” Haina said she’s experienced a recent shift, where it has become harder to find companies that sponsor H-1B visas. “This time when I was job searching, I didn’t realize it could be a deal breaker. I just had my second interview of 2026, and it was a pretty short call.” (Recruiter) “I don’t think we’re eligible or able to do sponsorship for this role at the moment.” “They don’t even really get to know if I’m qualified, am I experienced, or anything. The decision is already made at that point.” “Please, please make sure that the company you’re about to work for has experience handling international hires.” Joshi said a start-up she interned with during grad school rescinded their promise to sponsor her H-1B visa. “Ask for everything in writing. And then there were jobs that were contract jobs. They would just reject me. They would only need people with a green card or a U.S. citizenship.” Even with an H-1B and a six-figure salary, Huang said he felt himself becoming anxious, as tech layoffs ramped up and Trump’s immigration policies kept changing. “I woke up every morning with this knot in my stomach, because my entire life depended on the policy I couldn’t control. The United States seems not very welcoming to immigrants that contribute to this country.” “The signals are, like, pretty clear at this point. They want to make this H-1B, is, like, risky and also, like, harder.” Hello, everyone.” Despite that, Haina says she’s determined to keep looking for a job until she’s forced to leave the country. “The pressure about where I’m going to be in the next of my career or, like, my life. I sort of like lost the ability to enjoy my life or just be happy.” “So I had to leave the U.S. Of course, I expanded my search beyond the U.S. Found a job in Germany.” Joshi packed up her life and started a new role with a European biotech firm in January. “I think I left at a good time, because there would have been more stress. I would have been stuck in a loop.” “It’s an endless cycle of anxiety.” After quitting his job at Amazon, Huang is now back in Taiwan, planning to launch his own company. “To bet on building an A.I. company that gives me complete control over my time, location and future. Staying in the United States is no longer the only way to achieve my American dream.”

Continue Reading

Trending