Lily Jamali

Keep in mind, Anthropic and all of the major AI companies, Google, XAI and OpenAI all have contracts with the Pentagon. So this gets very public very quickly. And then you have President Trump saying not only are they blacklisting Anthropic, but that no government agency, no U.S. agency would be using Claude going forward. So the twist in all of that was that right around that time, OpenAI's Sam Maltman comes forward –

I think it's really bad. Right as things are reaching fever pitch with Anthropic and the Pentagon, the fact that Sam Altman comes forward and says they are now working with the Pentagon in this way, that angered a lot of users who ended up quitting chat GPT very publicly. OpenAI just struck a deal with the Pentagon.

Ja its own users are rage quitting to its competitor in real time. I joined the QuitGPT movement. It took me 10 seconds. This is the first major international boycott of the AI era. There was a QuitGPT campaign protest at the company's headquarters here in San Francisco.

You saw Claude, Anthropix model, just shoot to the top of the App Store charts while all of this is happening. So there Amadei looks like he is really taking a moral stance.

Se tuntuu olevan aika hyvältä yritysten näkökulmasta ja melko huonolta heidän mainitsemaansa OpenAI. Ne ovat todennäköisesti todennäköisesti myöntäneet julkaisuun tänä vuonna. Järjestelmä oli jo melko lämpimänä, mutta se on enemmän intensiivistä. Se on myös sydäntä. Anthropic markkinoi itseään turvallisena ja vastuullisena.

We are risking that. And I think the developers of AI tools are very aware of that. That's why the safety testing is happening. But because you bring up Jurassic Park, there's actually a scene in that movie that's been on my mind. The character played by Jeff Goldblum, I believe he's playing a mathematician in the movie. But really sort of the ethical voice. Don't you see the danger, Joan, inherent?

Yes, no notes. Absolutely no notes. I have chills. I mean, I think the analogy to AI just, it couldn't hit you over the head any more than it does. Can governments do anything to reduce the risk at this point, Lili?

He can. The question is, do they want to? And I'll just confine my comments to the United States, because right now we have an administration that has positioned itself as very supportive of the AI industry writ large. But what happens with tech regulation in the United States is that it often happens at the state level, not at the federal level. And

What I'm really struck by is that there's just been some very overt efforts to block states from regulating AI. There have been these proposed moratoriums, like a 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI. That was an actual provision that at one point was included in the language of the Big Beautiful Bill, which was passed by the U.S. Congress, pushed by President Trump in the summer of 2025.

Lopulta se ei mennyt läpi, mutta olen nähnyt sen ympärillä toisessa lainsäädännössä. Luulen, että se on jatkuva käynti, jossa USA-alueet ovat liittyneet ja yrittäneet varmistaa, etteivät he ole vahvistuneet Trumpin hallituksessa, kun he yrittävät rajoittaa tätä teknologiaa, koska he ovat ainoat, jotka tekevät tätä legaalisen näkökulmasta.

No, luulen, että olet ihan hyvä. Voit lopettaa pöytäsi. Mutta luulen, että tämä on mahdollisesti vettä-ajattelu. Se on tietenkin se, miten Anthropic haluaa asentaa tämän. Ehkä olen ostanut markkinoinnin hyppiä, en ole varma Tristan, mutta he haluavat olla nähneet, kun mennään esiin ennen kuin on liian myöhäistä.

this trial is significant because it's the first time that a us state has managed to sue this company meta over child safety and win and meta is one of the world's biggest tech companies they own instagram they own facebook they own threads and whatsapp these are products that nearly all of us use in some form or fashion and for years states like new mexico had a really hard time getting cases like this one

on child safety in front of juries because the tech companies would say that under US law, they're not responsible for content that people post on them.

Here, the state was able to successfully argue that this case was really about design choices, the algorithms that push certain content and potential contacts to these kids.

The fact that this case made it to a jury always carried a sense of historical consequence.

But this verdict with this $375 million judgment only adds to that sense.

So Meta is specifically found to have willfully engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of consumer protection laws in New Mexico.

The allegation which the jury bought here is that they misled the public when it comes to the safety of its platforms.

Meta has said they disagree with this verdict.

They're planning to appeal, as you mentioned.