AIWatch.

Remember this essay from March?

A lot of people have come around to that view:

You can read the full story—which reviews a wide range of concerns, from business practices to a sentiment that the doomerism has been overdone to concerns about whether Anthropic is trying to kneecap competitors—here. For many, the turning point seems to be the events of the last few days, when much of the industry but not Anthropic came out vigorously for “open-weight” models (which can be downloaded, given sufficient hardware, but which are not fully open source, because e.g. their training sets are generally not publicly available). Many signed a letter; Amodei instead issued a statement explaining his resistance, which many saw as tone-deaf and self-serving, in part because the statement called for locking down distillation by competitors even as it just came out that the company has been destroying rare books in bulk in order to distill their contents.

Hedgie@HedgieMarkets

🦔AI companies are bulk-buying rare books, scanning them through high-speed machines that cut the spines off, and shredding the originals. A service called ISBNdb facilitates orders of up to a million books and keeps buyers anonymous. Pre-2022 books are premium because they're

12:18 AM · Jul 27, 2026 · 22.3M Views

3.96K Replies · 27.7K Reposts · 70.5K Likes

I found myself (somewhat unusually) heartily agreeing with David Sacks:

David Sacks@DavidSacks

Anthropic maintains that it is entitled to train for free on all the world’s output, even if the author objects. But if a competitor trains on Anthropic’s output after paying for it, that is IP theft. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Ole Lehmann @itsolelehmann

btw anthropic's internal document on this literally said "we don't want it to be known that we are working on this.” it was called project panama. here's exactly what happened: 1: anthropic concluded that books were the cheapest way to build a world-class model because they

10:20 PM · Jul 27, 2026 · 1.47M Views

447 Replies · 4.07K Reposts · 32.6K Likes

All told, it would appear that most of the goodwill that Amodei accumulated in standing up to Hegseth has dissipated, much as most of the goodwill towards Altman eventually did.

Maybe one or the other, Altman or Amodei, will regain the public’s trust, but it is far from obvious that they will. In Altman’s case, I think dishonesty and lack of candor is the core issue; with good reason, people just don’t trust him anymore. For Amodei, who maybe means well, I think the issue is more one of tone deafness and self-certainty, coupled with a tendency to present arguments that frequently appear self-serving.

With apologies for the AI slop (the text at the bottom is particularly hilarious), I made a meme in their honor. Coming soon: a guy who could sell refrigerators to Eskimos (probably lying about their future benefits) versus a guy who often seems unable to read a room:

More seriously, the same WSJ article noted above reports that “Technologists and policymakers say they are also concerned about the AI race turning into a duopoly, with Anthropic and OpenAI essentially emerging as dominant players that control the market.”

Given how damaging AI could ultimately be, we need people we can fully trust, and I don’t think we have that.

P.S. I started a poll on X an hour ago. It’s not remotely scientific of course, but the early returns are pretty clear. The good news (for Dario) is that they prefer him to Sam 2:1; the bad news is the vast majority of respondents don’t trust either of them.

Am I the only one who thinks that spending a few trillion dollars to prop up a couple companies run by people hardly anyone trusts is bonkers?

No posts