I'm a member of an organization that collects money for Sudanese soup kitchens and hospitals in affected areas (https://sound-of-sudan.org/) , and I know a few other organizations that indirectly support such campaigns (e.g. https://sudfa-media.com/). Being personally acquainted with people, who spend much of their time, energy and last-but-not-least their own money on such activities, your claim makes me slightly angry.
> such regions the most money will be "lost" halfway
Please elaborate and don't lump all "regions" in with each other. My personal impression is that the combination of the community kitchen movement (which has its roots in the failed Sudanese revolution) and money transfers to mobile phones makes it relatively transparent where one's money goes and what it achieves. I'm not in the US, but I have no doubt that money donated to an organization like the Sudanese American Medical Association (https://sama-sd.org/about-us/finances/) largely reaches the people that need it.
> Those warloard will simply come and take it away from those citizens and provide to their armies.
I can assure you none of use would send money to hospitals or community kitchens, if this was likely to happen. What makes you think so?
So, let me first of all clear up one thing. I did not, and never intended to, degrade anyone who actually tries to make a difference. If you read my original comment, you can see that I clearly state that I respect the wish to help. I also state that I wish the world were a "better" place where things work the way we would like them to—but reality has too often proven otherwise. Also, while I will try to fully address your points, the totality of this problem is too complex and has too many factors to incorporate every variable; therefore, at some point, we have to refer to "grouping." I think you will understand what I mean by that.
When I referred to "such regions," I was personally referring to a combination of factors: infrastructure, supply chain consistency, reliability, and the general political situation. In this case, I would argue that poor infrastructure impacts transport and storage control when it comes to shipments. Supply chain consistency (even with organizations like UNICEF) is often not guaranteed; local partners change frequently, often influenced by the local situation, making it nearly impossible in some regions to maintain trusted chains. Reliability suffers because of these factors—when it is hard to maintain trusted partners, the problem persists. As for the political situation, I don’t believe I need to elaborate further.
So, when I say "such regions," I mean areas that fit this basic pattern. While not a perfect comparison, a notable example of this is when food supplies sent for civilians are intercepted by local armed groups. The supplies might reach the target location, but they do not always feed the people they were intended for. As you work in this area, you likely know this is not an isolated occurrence.
I am also not from the US, and I cannot speak specifically to the Sudanese American Medical Association. If they are truly creating change, that is a great thing, and everyone is free to donate to them. You will not see me advocating against donating to them.
Regarding your question on why I think you would send aid even if diversion was likely: I don't believe you would willingly fund "warlords." Rather, I believe that in high-risk regions, the intent of the donor doesn't always control the reality on the ground. My skepticism isn't a critique of your virtue or your specific organization, but a reaction to a historical pattern of aid diversion in volatile zones. You do this work because you believe the collected money will reach its destination and will not be abused, and I respect that you follow your beliefs for the "greater good."
You seem to be a good person doing important work, and to do that, you need to believe in the efficacy of your mission.
From a non-US perspective this must be disquieting to read: Not so much that Anthropic considers only US companies as partners. But what does Anthropic do to prevent malicious use of its software by its own government?
> Anthropic has also been in ongoing discussions with US government officials about Claude Mythos Preview and its offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. As we noted above, securing critical infrastructure is a top national security priority for democratic countries—the emergence of these cyber capabilities is another reason why the US and its allies must maintain a decisive lead in AI technology.
Not a single word of caution regarding possible abuse. Instead apparent support for its "offensive" capabilities.
There is very little Anthropic can do - that job is up to US citizens creating and enforcing checks and balances. You can’t ask a company legally bound by your country laws (made by your own representatives) to protect you or anyone else from said laws. That is your job.
And it is other countries job to protect themselves from other countries weapons. As EU citizen I’d much rather if EU had a frontier model on par, but here we are.
According to Dario Amodei, companies bear a lot of responsibility and must act on this. Just read https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/the-adolescence-of-technol... . But it seems that he has given up on this, even if he has a president that demands "complete and total control of Greenland" etc. What "allies" is this Anthropic statement referring to anyway?
In my view it would be extremely strange if it was any other way round. Anthropic is the US based company. There are no "citizens of world" at that scale, or at almost any other scale for that matter.
Anthropic stood up to the Pentagon because they were worried of potential abuse of their model. Never before a US company was labeled supply chain risk by the US government. That's a lot of business. Action speaks louder than words.
As for what your country can do, it's up to you to decide, isn't it? Instead of complaining about the US, think about the alternatives. Do you trust China to be your partner? Suppose you are being objective and say no, then what do your country need to do?
You have to decide whether AI capability is critical that your country must own. What factors prevent it from happening in the first place, what need to change and whether you accept changes that may come as the results.
On the other hand, if you say that AI is just a bubble, that the huge investment pouring into it is just greed and fraud, then I suppose you are ok with the status quo.
When I was reading https://ai-2027.com, which is quite a scary read, I couldn't help but think the US president being mentioned in the story acts too rational compared to the real world. It can get a lot crazier than this fictional piece.
And every time it works, they still don't acknowledge it. Would he have blown up bridges and power plants? Quite possibly. Would he have dropped a nuke? Obviously not.
You can listen to each of the original recordings. Just make sure you click on the first play button after you've chosen the sound, not the second (which often seems to be the default).
Reminds me of a visit of a garden restaurant in Munich, back in the days. My friend ordered a soup, but got a beer. Pointing out the mistake to the waiter, he was told that it doesn't matter, because the price is the same.
