OpenAI on Carles Abarca

Anthropic vs. the Pentagon: When AI Ethics Collides with Military Power

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Last week we witnessed something unprecedented in the history of artificial intelligence: an AI company standing up to the Pentagon and saying “no.”

Anthropic, creator of Claude — the only AI model currently authorized on the U.S. federal government’s classified systems — rejected the final terms of a $200 million contract with the Department of Defense. The consequences were immediate and brutal.

The Red Line
#

The conflict boiled down to two non-negotiable points for Anthropic:

Mass surveillance of American citizens. The Pentagon wanted to use Claude to analyze bulk-collected data: search histories, GPS movements, credit card transactions, even the questions you ask your favorite chatbot. All cross-referenced to build profiles.
Autonomous weapons. Systems that select and engage targets without a human making the final call. The 2026 military budget allocates $13.4 billion to these weapons alone.

Anthropic didn’t argue that such weapons shouldn’t exist. In fact, they offered to work directly with the Pentagon to improve their reliability. But they determined that current AI models aren’t reliable enough to make lethal decisions autonomously. The risk of indiscriminate fire, civilian casualties, or even harm to American troops was, in their analysis, too high.

The False Solution of “Cloud vs. Edge”
#

During negotiations, a proposal emerged: keep Anthropic’s AI in the cloud, out of the weapons themselves. The models would synthesize intelligence before an operation but wouldn’t make kill decisions. The AI’s hands would stay clean.

Anthropic rejected this with a devastating technical argument: in modern military AI architectures, the distinction between cloud and edge no longer exists. Drones operate through mesh networks connected to data centers. The Pentagon actively works to push computing closer to the battlefield. If a model in an AWS server in Virginia is making combat decisions, ethically there’s no difference from it being inside the drone.

The Response: The Hammer
#

When Anthropic held its ground, the response was swift:

Trump ordered all federal agencies to cease using Anthropic’s technology.
Pete Hegseth (Defense Secretary) designated Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security, barring any military contractor from doing business with the company.
OpenAI announced a Pentagon deal just hours later.

The message was clear: play by our rules, or we destroy you.

What Sam Altman Didn’t Explain
#

Here’s the most troubling part. Days before the collapse, Sam Altman had publicly declared that OpenAI would also refuse to let its models be used in autonomous weapons. Solidarity with Anthropic.

But while making those statements, he was already negotiating with the Pentagon. And he closed the deal hours after Anthropic’s fall, ensuring his AI would only be deployed “in the cloud” — exactly the solution Anthropic dismissed as insufficient.

Nearly 100 OpenAI employees signed an open letter supporting the same red lines as Anthropic. Altman will have to explain on Monday why what Anthropic rejected on principle, he accepted for business.

What’s Really at Stake
#

This crisis transcends a contract. It reveals three fundamental fractures:

1. AI as a geopolitical weapon. AI technology is no longer just a commercial product. It’s a strategic military asset, and governments are willing to use their full power to control it.

2. The illusion of self-regulation. Anthropic tried to set ethical limits from within. The response was a national security risk designation. What company will dare say “no” after this?

3. The gap between words and action. OpenAI talked principles and signed a check. It’s not the first time, and the industry should take note.

My Take
#

I’ve spent over 20 years in technology, and I’ve seen many inflection points. This is one of them.

Anthropic did something extraordinarily rare in the tech industry: sacrifice $200 million and their federal government access for an ethical position. We can debate whether it was a smart business decision, but we can’t deny it was brave.

What concerns me isn’t Anthropic — they’ll survive. What concerns me is the precedent. If an AI company that puts ethical limits on its technology can be designated a “national security risk,” we’re building a system where the only option is blind obedience.

And obedient AI without restrictions, in the hands of unchecked power, is exactly the scenario that every AI safety researcher has been warning about for years.

The question is no longer whether AI will transform warfare. The question is who decides the limits.

What do you think of Anthropic’s stance? Principles or naivety? I’d love to hear your perspective on LinkedIn or X.

Disney and OpenAI: The Smartest Deal of the Year

Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Everyone criticizes Disney for their deal with OpenAI.

I believe it is the smartest move of the year.

Yes, they invested $1 billion.
Yes, they “handed over” Mickey, Darth Vader, and 200 characters to Sora.
Yes, artists are furious.

But let us review the facts:

1. The Train Already Left the Station
#

People were already generating content with Disney characters in AI tools before the deal: without permission, without control, without a penny for Disney.

The alternative? Sue. As they did with Google recently, accusing them of infringing copyright “at massive scale” with Veo and Nano Banana.

The result of suing in tech? Ask yourself how it went for the music industry against Napster.

2. Monetize Over Litigate
#

Disney did not sell their characters. They licensed them. For 3 years.

With controls.
Without actor voices.
Without training models on their IP.
With curated content that they choose for Disney+.
And in the process, they became shareholders in a company valued at $500 billion.

3. The Real Game Is Distribution
#

Gen Z and Gen Alpha do not go to the movies. They do not watch linear TV. They live on TikTok, YouTube Shorts, and now – Sora.

Disney reported $23.62 billion in Q2 2025 revenue, +7% YoY. They have 3 of the 5 highest-grossing films of the year.

ChatGPT has 800 million weekly users and was the number 1 downloaded app in the US in 2025. That is the audience Disney just reached.

Disney just bought a seat at the table where the next generation’s content consumption is decided. Bob Iger is not selling Disney’s past – he is buying its future.

Gemini vs ChatGPT: The AI Race Changes Leaders Every Quarter

Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Eight days ago Sam Altman declared “Code Red” at OpenAI. Today Google has just overtaken ChatGPT in PhD-level benchmarks.

This is not a definitive victory – it is a change of leadership in a race that has barely begun.

Gemini 3 Pro wins today in:
#

1M-token context window (vs 400k for ChatGPT)
Native integration in Google Search and Workspace
Complex reasoning benchmarks

ChatGPT remains better in:
#

Familiar conversational interface
Partner ecosystem integration
Speed in iterative tasks

But here is the reality: in 6 months someone else may be in first place. From Europe comes Mistral, a growing option. Amazon is investing in its own chips. Meta is keeping a suspiciously low profile.

OpenAI’s Response: 14 Days
#

The updated scoreboard:

Gemini 3 Pro: 1M context tokens, ~130 tokens/second, $2.00/1M tokens. Dominates in multimodal reasoning.

GPT-5.2: 400k context tokens, ~90 tokens/second, $1.75/1M tokens. Dominates in structured professional tasks.

Current leader: tie. It depends on which benchmark you look at.

This is no longer a marathon. It is a relay sprint where the baton changes hands every quarter – or even sooner.

Why It Matters
#

The classic mistake: picking a “winner” and betting everything for 3 years. Today that is systemic risk.

The best-positioned organizations do not ask “which is the best AI?” They ask: “which is the best AI for this specific problem… knowing that in 6 months it may change?”

We need:

Flexible architecture – do not marry a platform
Teams that understand technical trade-offs, not hype
Processes that adapt quickly

Exploring the Future of AI-Generated Video

Fri, 16 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0000

The recent unveiling of SORA by OpenAI sent ripples through the tech world; this is a shift to AI-generated video technology.

The level of advancement achievable through SORA suggests a vision of the future in which the creation of realistic, engaging video content will be as straightforward as entering a text prompt. This capability would dramatically lower the barriers to high-quality video production and in return would open new and untapped avenues for creativity and storytelling.

The power to make great video content is no longer the privilege of big studios. Using sophisticated tools like SORA, small businesses, educators, and independent creators could easily leverage AI to bring their visions to life — making compelling video content more accessible than ever.

As we ride on these breakthroughs, we have to equally welcome the ethical dilemmas they come with. The potential to create deepfakes and fake information demands that guidelines and safeguards be collectively formulated for the sake of integrity and trust in AI-based content.

What Lies Ahead
#

The journey does not stop here. AI-generated video evolution is going to churn out even more interactive and personalized experiences, challenging the way we consume and interact with digital media like never before.

OpenAI on Carles Abarca

Anthropic vs. the Pentagon: When AI Ethics Collides with Military Power

The Red Line #

The False Solution of “Cloud vs. Edge” #

The Response: The Hammer #

What Sam Altman Didn’t Explain #

What’s Really at Stake #

My Take #

Disney and OpenAI: The Smartest Deal of the Year

1. The Train Already Left the Station #

2. Monetize Over Litigate #

3. The Real Game Is Distribution #