Most people are reading this as a safety vs defense debate. It’s not. It’s a governance-layer conflict. The real question is: Where do terminal boundaries live in high-capability AI systems? At the model layer? Or at the end-user layer? Anthropic appears to be saying: Certain terminal states should be structurally unreachable (autonomous lethal control, mass surveillance). The Pentagon appears to be saying: If lawful, the model should not interfere. Responsibility attaches at deployment. That’s not a moral argument. It’s an architecture argument. In systems engineering, there are only three real regimes: Valid Commit Bounded Failure Undefined Behavior You can tolerate bounded failure. You cannot tolerate undefined behavior under authority pressure. The debate isn’t about “following the law.” It’s about whether AI providers are allowed to enforce structural ceilings upstream, or whether all constraints must be downstream and institutional. That’s a design choice. And it determines where power actually sits. Most companies are not designing around terminal state coverage. They’re designing around performance metrics. That’s going to matter. submitted by /u/EcstaticAd9869
Originally posted by u/EcstaticAd9869 on r/ArtificialInteligence
You must log in or # to comment.