David Sacks accused Anthropic of suffering from "corporate schizophrenia," stating that while it continuously issues apocalyptic warnings about artificial intelligence, it paradoxically rushes to develop cutting-edge models and seeks favorable regulatory frameworks.

Sacks, who is currently the co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and previously served as an AI and crypto advisor at the White House, has publicly attacked Anthropic for months: framing the safety narrative as regulatory capture, linking model releases with worst-case scenario studies as fear marketing, and stating "do not set up a DMV for AI."

Contradictory statements include: Dario Amodei previously claimed that half of entry-level knowledge jobs could disappear within one to five years, while Sacks pointed out that net employment remained stable a year later and that Anthropic was still hiring engineers with salaries around $570,000; Amodei called for "controlling the pace of frontier development," to which Sacks responded, "you are the frontier; the simplest way is for you to agree not to create superintelligence," framing accompanying regulatory demands as extortion against the public and political system.

At the same time, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned and warned of potential extinction within a decade, while alignment science lead Evan Hubinger publicly stated a greater than 10% extinction probability within ten years; Amodei later published a call to slow down and introduce on-site evaluations. Sacks characterized third-party assessments like METR as entangled with Anthropic's investors and former employees, denying their independence.

Sacks' consistent stance advocates for open weights, multi-vendor competition, and prioritizing competition with China. He linked apocalyptic rhetoric, state-level legislative lobbying, and dual oligopoly market shares into the same accusation: first comparing products to nuclear bombs, then continuing to release models, and subsequently demanding the government set regulations according to their safety standards. Anthropic, on the other hand, continues to publish research on alignment, deception, and agency misconduct, using the narrative of responsibility as a differentiating selling point for corporate clients.

In market mechanisms, buyers are government and large enterprises seeking safety compliance, while sellers are laboratories simultaneously selling model capabilities and apocalyptic papers; funding flows from corporate contracts and potential IPO expectations to safety brands, while regulatory bandwidth shifts to "who has the right to hit the brakes." Beneficiaries are laboratories in power that can turn fear into entry barriers, while those under pressure are the open weights camp and White House technology advisors who do not want a new licensing system. The driving events stem from resignation posts and calls for slowing down, rather than new benchmark tests.

There is no exchange-verifiable "schizophrenia index"; what can be verified is the timeline of the same company issuing extinction probabilities, releasing new models, and demanding regulatory support.

Source: Public Information