Daniela Amodei, President of Anthropic, recently made a thinly veiled comment regarding rival OpenAI, implying that the company was acting “opportunistically” in its dealings with the Pentagon, particularly during a contentious moment for her own firm. This was mentioned in an exclusive interview excerpt obtained by The Post.
During a discussion with her brother Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, Daniela’s remarks came as they spoke with biographer Walter Isaacson for his podcast “The Builders.” The episode is set to air on Tuesday.
“Was this a genuine ethical stand from another tech firm, or was it just a convenient opportunity?” Daniela posed when asked about OpenAI’s actions following Anthropic’s difficult interactions with the Trump administration.
This statement adds to the ongoing rivalry between two of Silicon Valley’s prominent artificial intelligence companies.
“Our position is clear. We can’t dictate how other companies operate, but we can champion the principles that resonate with us ethically,” she added.
She recognized that there could be differing views from other companies regarding Anthropic’s guidelines, such as whether they were too strict or too lenient.
These comments arrive as Anthropic gears up for a major initial public offering, having filed official paperwork with plans to list its shares on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “ANT,” according to Wired.
As the creator of the Claude chatbot, Anthropic revealed it generated over $16 billion in revenue but also reported a net loss of $80.7 million in the first half of 2026. This compares to a loss of $13 billion during the same time last year, the outlet noted.
The prospectus indicated that the ongoing drama with the Trump administration posed a significant business risk, acknowledging that current legal challenges could affect sales to government entities and contractors.
The conflict began in February when Anthropic refused to lift its restrictions on the use of its AI models for mass surveillance and fully autonomous weaponry.
Pentagon officials argued that defense contractors should allow their technologies to be used for “all lawful applications,” stating that private firms shouldn’t possess the authority to dictate military operations.
Subsequently, President Trump instructed federal agencies to cease using Anthropic’s products, while the Pentagon labeled the company as a supply-chain risk.
OpenAI later secured an agreement with the Pentagon that allowed broad lawful applications of its technology, maintaining safeguards around surveillance and control of weapon systems.
The company has insisted that its arrangement with the Pentagon explicitly prohibits the use of its technology for mass surveillance, autonomous weapon systems, and high-stakes automated decision-making.
The tensions between these two AI companies date back to 2021, when Dario and Daniela departed OpenAI, founding Anthropic amid disagreements over safety, governance, and the increasing commercialization of the company.
The feud escalated during the Pentagon conflict in March when Dario was reported to have criticized OpenAI’s portrayal of its military deal as “straight up lies” and “safety theater” in a leaked message. He later expressed regret for his remarks but maintained support for Anthropic’s stance.
Anthropic has challenged the administration’s actions in federal court, achieving a favorable ruling in California in August, but a different federal appeals court in Washington upheld the Pentagon’s exclusion the following month. The company is seeking a rehearing on that ruling.
In the meantime, Dario defended Anthropic’s choice to prohibit fully autonomous weapon systems, cautioning Isaacson that AI could fundamentally threaten democracy, even in a future where it might be reliable enough to operate without human oversight.
He warned that a single individual could potentially command a vast army of AI-driven robots or drones without the safeguards that human soldiers provide.
Unlike AI, soldiers can refuse to follow orders that conflict with the Constitution or seem “morally repugnant,” he pointed out.
He concluded that having “one person with the ability to control a million robots or drones” poses a fundamental risk to democratic principles.
The Post has reached out for comments from both OpenAI and the Pentagon.
