> Because the "safest" AI is one that doesn't do anything at all.

We didn't say 'perfectly safe' or use the word 'safest'; that's a strawperson and then a disingenous argument: Nothing is perfectly safe, yet safety is essential in all aspects of life, especially technology (though not a problem with many technologies). It's a cheap way to try to escape responsibility.

> In most cases, failing to be helpful is costly

What an disingenuous, egocentric approach. Claude and other LLMs aren't that essential; people have other options. Everyone has the same obligation to not harm others. Drug manufacturers can't say, 'well our tainted drugs are better than none at all!'.

Why are you so driven to allow Anthropic to escape responsibility? What do you gain? And who will hold them responsible if not you and me?