Worth reading the actual Reuters piece this is based on rather than the Post's version of it.

For example, Reuters reports that investors "reiterated their support" for Anthropic while also expressing frustration with Amodei's diplomatic approach to the Pentagon. The Post mostly drops the support half and leads with the frustration.

Reuters also reports that OpenAI publicly defended Anthropic, with their national security policy person saying "We are actually working to have the secure risk designation removed from Anthropic" and that a major tech industry group including Amazon, Nvidia, Apple and OpenAI sent a letter pushing back on the supply-chain designation. The Post leaves both of those out.

Then the Post fills the gap with culture war material about an Anthropic researcher's blog posts on meat eating and incarceration, which has nothing to do with investor sentiment but makes the story read more like "woke company faces consequences" than "company tries to hold a line on autonomous weapons while investors push for a diplomatic resolution."

The Reuters piece tells a story about investors who broadly agree with Anthropic's position but think the relationship with the Pentagon was mishandled - but the Post turns that into a story about investors turning on a woke CEO.

Its so sad that the handful of people in SV that have the spine to stand up to perverse incentives are then pressured by the rest who dont give 2 shits about the quality of society they are building

Then those investors are but an albatross to weigh down and smother progress.

User engagement, app downloads, general public awareness, and positive perception have skyrocketed.

OpenAI is in danger of collapsing under the weight of unfilled promises. Anthropic has been humble in comparison while still delivering marked improvements with each iteration.

Says a lot about the investors that they think it's Anthropic and not the Pentagon who mishandled things.

This article doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's propoganda. The CEO of Anthropic said there were two use cases, the DoD (Trump does not have the authority to rename it) hadn't even attempted yet, but due to this potential limitation, our hot headed SecDef decided it would be best to ban them altogether.

>cleanse their supply chains of Anthropic Likening an American tech company to.. dirt? Disease? Sin? Why do they need to be cleansed?

>"...it has already done harm, significant harm to the company,” he added, referring to Anthropic. What has done harm? Anthropic giving the boundaries for what their technology can and can't do?

I think about the (also propaganda) 60 minutes interview with Dario. The interviewer said that Boeing doesn't give the government limitations on what it can do with planes, so how is Anthropic any different. Utter lies. This would be like Boeing saying "Our plane can't reliably fly past 800 MPH or land on top of a home" and Pete Hegseth saying he VERY much wanted to land turbine-propelled jets on home ceilings at 900 MPH, so he must ban Boeing.

It's just blatant lies and propoganda. But when you and your friends run the government and own all the media companies, I guess you get to steer the conversation.