The term red line suggest that they are willing to give up things that aren’t red lines.
This is very different from the term “red line” meaning they are “okay” with anything that isn’t a “red line”. Obviously there exist compromises Anthropic is willing to make in the service of US national interest. That is different from disinformation campaigns in particular being among those compromises.
Further, in the exceptions to the usage policy (which you link) Anthropic states explicitly
For example, with carefully selected government entities, we may allow foreign intelligence analysis in accordance with applicable law. All other use restrictions in our Usage Policy, including those prohibiting use for disinformation campaigns, the design or use of weapons, censorship, domestic surveillance, and malicious cyber operations, remain.
(bolding my own)
This paragraph is somewhat difficult to read, but I read this as stating that even given exceptions to their general usage policy given to government entities, the listed prohibitions would remain in place, which notably do include your disinformation campaigns.
The key aspect of that paragraph is “for example”. If I’m saying “For example, on Wednesdays I’m not beating my wife”, that’s no claim that I’m not beating my wife in general.
The document lays out that there’s are secret agreements that are made that negotiate expectations and that there’s one of those secret agreements where the usage of disinformation campaigns is ruled out. It does not state that it’s ruled out in all agreements.
Obviously there exist compromises Anthropic is willing to make in the service of US national interest.
Yes, and given the red lines they communicate that compromise seems to involve allowing disinformation campaigns but not allowing domestic surveillance and autonomous decision to kill people.
This is very different from the term “red line” meaning they are “okay” with anything that isn’t a “red line”. Obviously there exist compromises Anthropic is willing to make in the service of US national interest. That is different from disinformation campaigns in particular being among those compromises.
Further, in the exceptions to the usage policy (which you link) Anthropic states explicitly
(bolding my own)
This paragraph is somewhat difficult to read, but I read this as stating that even given exceptions to their general usage policy given to government entities, the listed prohibitions would remain in place, which notably do include your disinformation campaigns.
The key aspect of that paragraph is “for example”. If I’m saying “For example, on Wednesdays I’m not beating my wife”, that’s no claim that I’m not beating my wife in general.
The document lays out that there’s are secret agreements that are made that negotiate expectations and that there’s one of those secret agreements where the usage of disinformation campaigns is ruled out. It does not state that it’s ruled out in all agreements.
Yes, and given the red lines they communicate that compromise seems to involve allowing disinformation campaigns but not allowing domestic surveillance and autonomous decision to kill people.