Whenever I start reading an article and notice traditional AI markers, I throw it into my AI summarizer to see if it's worth reading. Fighting fire with fire.

For example, this article (allegedly) makes two main observations to justify Anthropic being exceptionally bad:

> 1. Anticompetitive behavior. Anthropic cuts off users who get close to building competing AI (OpenAI, Windsurf, xAI), its terms block using Claude outputs to train competitors, it secretly degraded outputs for AI development work (Fable), and it trains on public and copyrighted data while blocking reciprocal use.

> 2. Weaponized safety and national security framing. Anthropic uses risk language to shape regulation (RSP influence in CA, NY, EU), advocate for pause authority while racing ahead, tie distillation to the CCP and military surveillance, and dismiss Chinese open models as a security threat rather than competing on openness.

There was probably more original thought behind the author prompts, but it is difficult to tell because it is all buried under meaningless slop, grande language, and derivative repetitions.

For real people, Anthropic just lobbies the government.

For a badly prompted LLM, Anthropic is laundering fear into paperwork through a feudalistic permission layer plantation model that wears the costume of virtue.

Same same.