Talk:Anthropic

As far as I can tell, Anthropic has not published anything attributing a specific parameter count to Claude. The source listed by this article is a paper not published by Anthropic, and it does not itself cite a source that says Claude has 52 billion parameters. This claim should be removed unless there's a better source. Unseemly Levity (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

He's a public figure, with a resume on LinkedIn, numerous news articles, and interviews, etc. Surely there is someone with more standing than I have to initiate this article. Cgmusselman (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you show some sources? I wanted to create an article, but there is almost no coverage on Amodei siblings, apart from "they founded Anthropic" and "they worked for OpenAI before". Interviews and linkedin are primary sources, and there were no profile in any major media like they did for Sam Altman. Artem.G (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have the impression that this content provides little insight on Claude relative to the number of lines. And that it is one benchmark among others. But if other contributors consider that it's interesting and worthwhile for viewers, then all good, let's keep it. What do you think? Should this be kept, simplified, or removed? Alenoach (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

it seems like random and useless benchmark info to me. perhaps someone had an axe to grind about copyright violations or securities fraud? in any case, i moved it to Claude_(language_model) since maybe it's slightly less out of place there than here. 135.180.116.182 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

well that page didn't want it, so i guess it's gone forever. try harder next time, Patronus AI. 135.180.116.182 (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adityak2003, RenzhiL, Jackhutchins, USCMaZiLl (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 1namesake1 (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume that this is notable enough to mention here or on one of the Amazon articles.
At Amazon’s Biggest Data Center, Everything Is Supersized for A.I." Mapsax (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This whole controversy seems worthy of a standalone section here. It's not only a pivotal moment in the company's history, but also the military's relationship with the private sector as a whole. Dominated headlines for quite a while, and news stories are still coming out: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/01/technology/anthropic-defense-dept-openai-talks.html Doctorstrange617 (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this overstates the matter. Yes, it incurred a spike in the news cycle, but it didn't 'dominate' headlines, and is already fading. It also doesn't strike me as 'pivotal' - consequential, sure, but in the long term it remains to be seen. The existing section quite neatly describes the matter from start (their creation of 'Claude Gov' and the contract with DoD) to "end" (such as it is). I certainly think it could stand to be fleshed-out with some discussion of the consequences (including wonder boy Altman's sleazy "oh sure we'll do it!") but it doesn't require a separate section aside from the existing 'U.S. military and intelligence'.

All of this - of course - is my opinion. I'm completely open to further discussion and consensus making. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. It could work in the "U.S. military and intelligence" section alone or perhaps as a sub-section beneath that, as long as the matter is dissected thoroughly because the ramifications for Anthropic, OpenAI, the U.S. military, etc. seem to be significant (even in terms of surveillance and how it affects American citizens). We'll know more in the coming weeks, but I'm totally open to your idea and others in the meantime. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree, a subsection may be appropriate as the details are fleshed out. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There has been a lot of media coverage on the topic, so I think it's even worth a separate article, which could cover not just the basic events but also the background, the legal aspect, Amodei's memo... The legal aspect around Anthropic's lawsuit and the debate about the legality of domestic surveillance in particular seems to have lasting relevance. What do you think of creating an article named, for example, "2026 Anthropic-Pentagon dispute"? (I would be open to better names) Alenoach (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The media coverage has subsided to roughly nil. It's relevant to this article, I don't see enough to justify a separate article; at the bare minimum, it would be an exceedingly short article - which would likely be folded right back into this article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"roughly nil"? Even just from The New York Times, you have all these sources about the conflict between the Pentagon and Anthropic: . So even if we only considered The New York Times, it would already be more than enough to pass the bar for notability. Alenoach (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a sub to NYT so I can't verify them, but even so, only the first six of those are from March, leaving nine that were contemporaneous to when this was all going down back in mid-to-late February. A single source covering multiple angles and keeping the story 'alive' is fine, but we have to go by the preponderance of sources. A single source isn't likely to hold up for entire separate article.

All that said - you're welcome to go ahead and start a new article, I'm not a gatekeeper. The consensus 'machine' will engage, and we'll see where it goes. I'm happy to commit to not participating in any such machinations; I'm only interested in appropriate coverage, I think this article is fine in that respect, but others disagree. All good! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, my point actually wasn't that we should use primarily The New York Times, it was just to limit the scope of my search to one outlet to give an idea of the total amount of reliable sources. Alenoach (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Alenoach that the coverage and significance of the topic warrants a dedicated article. Coverage in RS continues; the Financial Times just published this. Sir Paul (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed by the way that ElijahPepe has created an article on it: Anthropic–United States Department of Defense dispute. Still a lot to cover, but it's a good start. Alenoach (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm still working on the article, just figured that everyone has probably covered the dispute itself already and not the background information. This is worthy of an article: it spans multiple topics, it is still being covered—the lawsuit was the impetus, though I had been considering an article for a while—and there is an impact in terms of Anthropic's userbase, the question of how much Anthropic can decide its technology should be used, and Trump's declaration of Anthropic as a supply chain risk. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the sources for this being 'widely condemned' are two pages from Reason and one from Cato. Whether or not these are properly opinion articles is relevant, but they are definitely also not 'wide'. They are closely aligned and ideologically biased sources. Per WP:REASONMAG, that outlet's news coverage is reliable for statements of fact, but 'widely condemned' isn't supported by any one source as a simple fact. This is an opinionated source being used for a subjective claim without attribution in the lead. In order to say this was "widely condemned" we would need to cite and better summarize a reliable source saying that. To cite examples of condemnation and summarize them in this way is editorializing and WP:SYNTH. Likewise, "others have stated" is improper. Attributing direct quotes to organizations, instead of the named authors of those opinions, is also sloppy. Using a primary source for a quote to support a specific opinion is also undue, here.

Additionally, there were (at least) two notable amicus briefs, not just one, as the revert suggested. Both were from groups with specific, relevant ares of interest. Grayfell (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)