From leaving OpenAI to confronting the Pentagon: How the Anthropic siblings draw the red line for AI to prevent civilization collapse

Bloomberg exclusive interview with Anthropic founder, revealing the rift with OpenAI and the "safety first" mission. Facing conflicts with the Pentagon, warnings of large-scale unemployment, and threats from powerful models Mythos.
(Background: Claude has 80% of its code written by itself, is Anthropic calling for a "global design brake mechanism" seriously?)
(Additional background: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei: In 6-12 months, Chinese open-source AI models will catch up to Mythos)

Table of Contents

Toggle

• Chapter 1: The law of exponential growth and vision
• Chapter 2: From childhood in San Francisco to the rift with OpenAI
• Chapter 3: Defining AI morality and "Constitution"
• Chapter 4: Corporate deployment and unemployment crisis
• Chapter 5: Pentagon's red lines and Mythos model
• Chapter 6: How to face a 25% extinction probability?
• Epilogue

In the AI arms race, Anthropic is seen as OpenAI’s strongest competitor, already leading the pack. Founded in 2021 by former OpenAI executives Dario Amodei and Daniela Amodei, the company has always championed "AI safety," with its Claude model highly praised in the industry.

However, over time, Anthropic has also fallen into a vortex of power and ethics. From contract disputes with the Pentagon to the supermodel Mythos capable of destroying cybersecurity, this sibling duo stands at the forefront of transforming human civilization.

Bloomberg senior reporter Emily Chang visited Anthropic’s headquarters in San Francisco to gain insight into this nearly trillion-dollar valuation company’s core vision, internal conflicts, and fears for the future. Here are the key points from the interview.

Chapter 1: The law of exponential growth and vision

Emily Chang: I really like this library. Are you a big bookworm?

Dario Amodei: It’s indeed very beautiful here. Overall, I read a lot, but honestly, in the past year or so, I hardly had any free time.

Emily Chang: Your product updates are so frequent and rapid. How do you manage that?

Dario Amodei: We use Claude (our own model) throughout the entire product development cycle. This allows us to release at an extremely fast pace.

Dario Amodei: The feeling of this exponential pattern is: at first, it seems like nothing happens, then small things occur, and then—bang! It explodes wildly. I’ve observed this pattern for a long time, and I think: “Yes, we might become the highest revenue and highest valuation AI company at some point.” And it indeed happened. We’re always thinking: how to train good models? How to turn them into good products?

Most importantly, how to ensure everything is safe.

Chapter 2: From childhood in San Francisco to the rift with OpenAI

Emily Chang: Tell me about your childhood in San Francisco. Your father was a leather craftsman, your mother worked in a library—how did that influence you?

Dario Amodei: Back then, the first internet revolution was happening, but I had no interest. I was only interested in mathematics, understanding the universe, and science fiction novels. I was filled with a strong curiosity about the world.

Daniela Amodei (Anthropic President): Dario has been very smart since he was a child. He was doing calculus in middle school, taking math courses at Berkeley in high school. I tend to focus on reading and art; we are almost perfect complements in personality.

Note: In 2016, Dario joined the newly established OpenAI, and Daniela followed in 2018. Dario developed the famous "scaling laws" there, predicting that models would become smarter as data and compute increase. This theory paved the way for ChatGPT’s success. But in 2021, the Amodei siblings chose to leave, becoming a legend in Silicon Valley.

Emily Chang: Your decision to leave OpenAI has become a “myth” in Silicon Valley. What exactly caused the split?

Dario Amodei: Regarding "safety," there are many reasonable disagreements. But disagreement alone isn’t enough to leave. The core issue is "trust." When you feel that the other party’s values don’t align with what they say, and you feel they are dishonest, it becomes very hard to cooperate. Rather than arguing with someone who lacks a shared vision, it’s better to do your own thing.

Chapter 3: Defining AI morality and "Constitution"

Emily Chang: Claude has a very unique style and a humanized name. What message are you trying to convey?

Daniela Amodei: We call it "Professional Warmth." The goal isn’t for it to become your best friend, but to be approachable while maintaining a professional distance.

Emily Chang: You mentioned teaching Claude to "be better." What is a good model? What is a bad one?

Daniela Amodei: We don’t want models to lie—whether intentionally or unintentionally, we call this "hallucination." We also must ensure models don’t deliberately try to deceive users. When defining "good" and "bad," although there’s no global standard, we train it using foundational documents like the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Interestingly, we’ve even started dialogues with religious leaders to explore how to embed the core values humanity has protected for thousands of years into the models.

Chapter 4: Corporate deployment and unemployment crisis

Emily Chang: Why focus on enterprise and coding?

Dario Amodei: Business models must align with values. The social media world is driven by ads and addiction. In the enterprise sector, AI can cure diseases and optimize energy. This aligns better with our goals.

Boris Cherny (Claude Code Lead): Previously, engineers had to write code manually. Now Claude writes code, and I oversee it. It’s like having a jetpack; the role of engineers is undergoing a revolutionary change. Personally, 100% of my code is written by Claude.

Emily Chang: But this raises concerns. You once predicted AI might replace half of entry-level white-collar jobs. Is that still your view?

Dario Amodei: I remain very worried. Currently, AI makes people more productive, but when automation approaches 100%, what are humans supposed to do? That’s an uncomfortable fact. We need to consider universal basic income (UBI) or policy interventions.

Daniela Amodei: I’m a bit more optimistic. I believe humans will find new ways to utilize AI, and human-to-human interactions (like bedside care in medical diagnosis) are things AI can never replace.

Chapter 5: Pentagon’s red lines and Mythos model

Emily Chang: Media reports say Claude has been used for military actions against Iran, and even in operations in Venezuela.

Dario Amodei: I am a patriot. I believe we need to protect democracy from authoritarian threats. But I’ve drawn a red line: Claude cannot be used for "mass surveillance" or "autonomous weapons." When the Pentagon asked to remove safety barriers, we refused. Even if we are blacklisted or called "left-wing lunatics," we will not back down.

Emily Chang: And what about the Mythos model? I hear it’s so powerful that it causes fear outside.

Dario Amodei: Mythos has discovered vulnerabilities in almost all mainstream operating systems. Companies testing it call it a "superweapon."

Emily Chang: You decide who can use it and who cannot. Doesn’t this concentration of power worry you?

Daniela Amodei: It’s indeed very complex. We must balance "preventing it from being used to hack banks or steal secrets" with "helping defenders." We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of social media, waiting until something goes wrong to apologize.

Chapter 6: How to face a 25% extinction probability?

Emily** Chang:** You mentioned there’s a 10% to 25% chance of civilization collapsing. Why do you think you can handle this pressure?

Dario Amodei: I handle the pressure through "absolute transparency." I give a one-hour talk to all employees every two weeks, discussing everything openly. This builds trust and makes me feel less lonely.

Many compare the push for nuclear weapons development and subsequent calls for arms control to Oppenheimer. But Dario believes Oppenheimer is, to some extent, a "failed case."

Emily Chang: Who is the historical figure you most agree with? Oppenheimer?

Dario Amodei: I identify more with Leo Szilard, the first to conceive of chain reactions. Oppenheimer is, in some ways, a failed case because he didn’t establish enough checks and balances. We need checks and balances.

Emily Chang: Amid all this madness, how do you find peace?

Dario Amodei: Honestly, it’s "exposure therapy." Sometimes I play games with Daniela or my wife, or go to Italy to see our horse "Calypso." It knows nothing about AI; it’s just a happy horse. That’s my Zen.

Epilogue

Emily Chang: You’re building an incredibly powerful technology and will profit from it. Why should we trust you?

Dario Amodei: Skepticism is natural. Silicon Valley has lost a lot of trust. Trust isn’t something you say; it’s something you do. If these people can’t even uphold their bottom line, then maybe no one can. We can’t guarantee success, but we can guarantee we’ll do our best.