There are generous ways to interpret a critique of "redditification".
1. An increase in comments that aim to gather social approval as opposed to advancing a conversation or sharing knowledge -- often including meta commentary on threads e.g., "reddit moment".
2. Topics start to become more general and lose the tech/startup scene focus of the site.
These are legitimate. Reddit threads are stereotypically full of noise and HN should avoid that.
However there's a third form of the critique that I think should be avoided.
3. Too many comments seem to reflect values and worldviews rooted in [socially] liberal ideals.
Because of this, it's probably useful to give some context for what in particular constitutes "redditifcation". That way dang and any other mods can try to address it with particular policy decisions.
Words are cheap. Actions aren't. Dario Amodei is putting his company on the line for what he believes in. That's courage, character and... yes, morality.
I am convinced that Amodei's "morality" is purely performative, and cynically employed as a marketing tactic. Time will tell, but most people will forget his lies.
“Dario is saying the right thing and doing the right thing and not ever acting otherwise, but I think it’s just performative so I’m still disappointed in him.”
We don't know how the military intended to use Claude, and neither do we know nor does the military know whether Claude without RLHF-imposed safety would have been more useful to them.
Ergo, this is a very convenient PR opportunity. The public assumes the worst, and this is egged on by Anthropic with the implication that CLAUDE is being used in autonomous weapons, which I find almost amusing.
He can now say goodbye to $200 million, and make up for it in positive publicity. Also, people will leave thinking that Claude is the best model, AND Anthropic are the heroes that staved off superintelligent killer robots for a while.
Even setting this aside, Dario is the silly guy who's "not sure whether Claude is sentient or not", who keeps using the UBI narrative to promote his product with the silent implication that LLMs actually ARE a path to AGI... Look, if you believe that, then that is where we differ, and I suppose that then the notion that Amodei is a moral man is comprehensible.
Oh, also the stealing. All the stealing. But he is not alone there by any means.
edit: to actually answer your question, this act in itself is not what prompted me to say that he is an immoral man. Your comment did.
> to promote his product with the silent implication that LLMs actually ARE a path to AGI
That isn't implied. The thought process is a) if we invent AGI through some other method, we should still treat LLMs nicely because it's a credible commitment we'll treat the AGI well and b) having evidence in the pretraining data and on the internet that we treat LLMs well makes it easier to align new ones when training them.
Anyway, your argument seems to be that it's unfair that he has the opportunity to do something moral in public because it makes him look moral?
His actions seem pretty consistent with a belief that AI will be significant and societally-changing in the future. You can disagree with that belief but it's different to him being a liar.
The $200m is not the risk here. They threatened labelling Anthropic as a supply chain risk, which would be genuinely damaging.
> The DoW is the largest employer in America, and a staggering number of companies have random subsidiaries that do work for it.
> All of those companies would now have faced this compliance nightmare. [to not use Anthropic in any of their business or suppliers]
... which would impact Anthropic's primary customer base (businesses). Even for those not directly affected, it adds uncertainty in the brand.
It’s possible Dario is a bad person pretending to be good and Sundar is a good person only pretending to be bad. People argue whether true selflessness exists at all or whether it’s all a charade.
But if the “performance” involves doing good things, at the end of the day that’s good enough for me.
Standing up to the US government has real and serious sequence. Peter Hegseth threatened to make Anthropic supply chain risk, meaning not only is Anthropic likely dropped as Pentagon’s supplier, but also risk losing companies doing business with the military as customers, such as Boeing or Lockheed Martin. Whatever tactic you think he is doing, that’s potentially massive revenue lost, at the time they need any business they can get.
These are literally words. The DoW could still easily exploit these platforms, and nothing Anthropic has done can prevent it, other than saying (publicly), "we disagree."
The dispute seems to be specifically about safeguards that Anthropic has in its models and/or harnesses, that the DoD wants removed, which Anthropic refuses to do, and won’t sign a contract requiring their removal. Having implemented the safeguards and refusing their removal are actions, not “literally words”.
Again, these are just words, and they're a salad of legal terms of art that provide cover for virtually any action. "We prevent the -illegitimate- use..." [define illegitimate plz?]
It’s a contract dispute. Contracts are more than just talk.
While it is true that DoW could try to bypass the contract and do whatever they want, if it were that easy they wouldn’t be asking for a contract in the first place.
Should probably look up how many private companies are suing the government at any one time because of a breach of contract. And that's publicly breaching.
NSA and other three-letter agencies happily do it under cloak and dagger.
I agree with you that the govt can and does violate contracts. So the fact that they need Anthropic to agree signals that it’s more than just lawyers preventing the DoW from doing whatever they want.
What's the US history around nationalization? Would "confiscation", ever be a likelyhood on escalation?
On a quick search I came up with an article, that at least thematically, proposes such ideas about the current administration "Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook"
It's not so clear the company is actually on the line. They can compel Anthropic to do what they are not willing to do, maybe, this is not the final act. The government needs to respond, to which Anthropic will need to respond, courts may become involved at that point, depending on if Anthropic acquiesces at that point or not. Make a prominent statement against while in the news cycle, let the rest unfold under less media attention.
I disagree. There is a class of leaders in this country that is complicit with the administrations use of violence on the tacit understanding that the violence not be directed at them. Arresting one of those people would be an act of desperation that would likely cause the rats to flea the sinking ship. And it isn't even clear if Trump could actually manufacture any charges here. Look at the dropped charges against Mark Kelly and those other politicians as an example. The administration might be able to make up stories to arrest random immigrants and college kids, but they clearly haven't been able to indiscriminately jail powerful political opponents.
Meanwhile, Dario knows his product can't be trusted to actually decide who should live and who should die, so what happens the first time his hypothetical AI killing machines make the wrong decision? Who gets the blame for that? Would the American government be willing to throw him under the bus in the face of international outrage? It's certainly a possibility.
In all seriousness The Hague has no jurisdiction over Americans and Congress has already authorized military use of force against Brussels should they ever attempt to prosecute Americans.
There's an excellent and eerily prescient novel that attempts to portray what such a "tipping point" might look like, and when it could arrive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mandibles
The flip side of that, is that the same sense of urgency that flings populists into power also compels them to start to bend the systems that got them there in order to maintain power.
After all, if the evil "elites" -- as if populists don't comprise their own elite class -- ever gain power again they could undo all of our "progress".
You can see this tendency in how some red states, like Texas, have tried to furiously redraw their maps to maintain control of the US house. They are doing this because they fear that "the people" will not choose to give them a majority again. They even admit to it openly. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/15/trump-five-seat-pic...
California had a state wide vote to do the same thing. But they were acting in kind. Tit-for-tat is a reasonable strategy what Texas did. Though it remains a shame that it came to it.
Cumulatively, these actions represent a breakdown of the machinery in our system that allows us to course correct. It's not healthy for anyone.
Planned markets lead to bad economic outcomes, why? Because when you fix prices you lose the ability to react appropriately to changing conditions. Managed democracies lead to bad social outcomes for the same reason. You need reasonably fair elections in order to sense the condition of the population and react to it.
Yet, populist rhetoric ups the emotional ante to the point where it starts to convince people that it's a good idea to subvert this. The old "Flight 93 Election" essay from 2016 is the perfect case study in this sort of absurd rhetorical escalation. Where they literally said, if Trump doesn't win America is doomed forever. We have to "charge the cockpit" before the plane crashes, so to speak.
Yet, when he lost in 2020, America didn't end forever. It's all been a farce and a grab for power.
The author talks about why it's important to take a different approach to auth regarding MCP servers and Agents. One can pass through identity, but the other shouldn't.
1. An increase in comments that aim to gather social approval as opposed to advancing a conversation or sharing knowledge -- often including meta commentary on threads e.g., "reddit moment".
2. Topics start to become more general and lose the tech/startup scene focus of the site.
These are legitimate. Reddit threads are stereotypically full of noise and HN should avoid that.
However there's a third form of the critique that I think should be avoided.
3. Too many comments seem to reflect values and worldviews rooted in [socially] liberal ideals.
Because of this, it's probably useful to give some context for what in particular constitutes "redditifcation". That way dang and any other mods can try to address it with particular policy decisions.
reply