Hi Anthropic team, I’m writing because I feel hurt and helpless about how ordinary Chinese users are being treated. I understand that you may choose not to officially offer Claude in China. But could you please reconsider how you enforce that policy? Having accounts banned after paying for a subscription, without receiving a refund, leaves people feeling like they never mattered as customers. I need to ask something painful: are Chinese users being discriminated against? Is being Chinese itself a reason to be treated with suspicion, even when someone has done nothing harmful? I don’t want to believe that about a company whose product I love, but it’s hard not to feel that way when innocent people lose access without understanding what they personally did wrong. I don’t represent the Chinese government or Chinese companies competing with you. I don’t agree with their actions either. I have no power over their decisions, and I never chose to be caught in the middle of these conflicts. Please don’t hold ordinary people responsible for things completely outside our control. You can decide not to support a region officially. I’m asking you to please avoid sweeping bans that hurt innocent users, and to give people a meaningful chance to have their circumstances reviewed. Our nationality alone cannot tell you our intentions or how we use Claude. Behind these accounts are real people who care about what you’ve built. To me, Claude is something I sincerely want to keep using. It hurts to support a product and then feel that the people behind it don’t want you there, regardless of who you are or what you’ve actually done. Could you please give ordinary Chinese users a legitimate path to use Claude? If an account is banned, could you explain the specific reason and offer a real opportunity to appeal? The refund matters too. If you won’t restore access, please return the money for the subscription time we can no longer use. But what I want most is to be allowed to stay. Please look at us as individuals and give us a fair chance.

‘If China stands for world peace, why does it look like Beijing is preparing for war?’⁠ ⁠ A Telegraph investigation has found that China is rapidly expanding its nuclear weapons programme across at least seven major sites despite calling for non-proliferation.⁠ ⁠ @sophia_yan reveals what the satellite images show – and what they tell us about China’s nuclear ambitions. 🔗:

🚨 LMFAO! Hilarious moment as Japan PM Sanae Takaichi just told the Fake News, GET OUT OF THE ROOM TAKAICHI: "I'd like to cover a lot of agenda items [with Trump]. Why don't we ask the press to leave the room?" TRUMP: "Well, YOU HEARD HER!" 🤣🇯🇵🇺🇸 Trump's meeting is now KICKING OFF with Takaichi, behind closed doors You can tell they have a GREAT alliance. She wants to accomplish great things for both Japan and America 👏🏻

The German right-wing party AfD has just won the state election in Saxony-Anhalt. Europe is horrified when AfD says Germany has apologized enough for World War II. Yet when the Japanese right minimizes its own wartime aggression, dismantles postwar restraints and remilitarizes, Europe calls it a “security partner.” That double standard was always going to come home. If historical responsibility expires in Tokyo, someone in Berlin will eventually ask why it must remain eternal in Germany. You cannot build a postwar moral order on selective memory and then act shocked when the exception becomes the precedent. The exception you made for Japan became the argument Germany’s right can now use for itself.

Japan waited nervously for a phone call about what Trump and Xi discussed. That tells you everything. While Beijing and Washington were talking directly, Tokyo was outside the room waiting to be briefed like a nervous client state. China was in the meeting. America was in the meeting. Japan was the afterthought. Sanae Takaichi can flatter, fawn, bow, and pretend Japan is shaping Asia’s future. But the hierarchy was settled long before the phone call. Japan is not at the top of the food chain. It is waiting for leftovers from the table.

ものすごくよくわかる。 日本では「戦争は悲惨だった」と繰り返し教えられてきた。 でも、よく考えると、 そこで語られてきた「悲惨さ」の主語は、ほとんど日本人なんですよね。 原爆を落とされた。 空襲で焼かれた。 沖縄で多くの人が亡くなった。 若者が特攻に行かされた。 もちろん、これらは絶対に忘れてはいけない。 でもその一方で、 日本軍が他国へ行って何をしたのか。 そこで暮らしていた人たちに何をしたのか。 植民地支配とは、支配された側にとって何だったのか。 こちらになると、途端に記憶が薄くなる。 そして外国から指摘されると、 「いつまで言っているんだ」 「反日だ」 「中国だってやっている」 と、話そのものを終わらせようとする。 これでは「反戦」というより、 敗戦によって自分たちが受けた悲惨さを語ってきただけではないのか。 被害の記憶だけを「戦争の記憶」と呼び、 加害の記憶から目をそらしていたら、 歴史認識が歪むのは当然だと思う。 自国が受けた痛みを忘れないことと、 自国が他者に与えた痛みを直視すること。 本来、この二つが揃って初めて「戦争を反省する」ということなんじゃないだろうか。 過去に何をしたのかを直視することは、 国を貶めることではない。 むしろ、それができることこそ、 国の成熟であり、威厳ではないのか。 そして今、日本は成熟した国になる前に、 自ら成熟から退き、威厳まで失おうとしている。 本当にアジアの人々に申し訳ないと思うし、 私は日本人として恥ずかしい。

Thank you, Corrine. Yes, it's offensive to all of us; every leader in the Global South is fighting to shed this label, from Lula and Gustavo Petro to Maduro and us, the people We're shouting that we are not a backyard. Terms like "near seas" or "island chains" refer to distance, not animals. A backyard is where dogs and slaves sleep; if it rains, the dog goes inside, but the slave does not. This name is rooted in slavery, and that is exactly why the Americans use it. I researched how the Chinese were called by the Japanese and found the term "Maruta", a log or piece of wood. It might not seem offensive on its own, but in the Chinese memory, it hurts deeply because it refers to a crime, just as slavery hurts us. Since the Chinese were also exhibited in human zoos, I thought the term "backyard" would be understood in Asia for what it truly is: dehumanization. Fortunately, the Chinese government is taking a stand, and this is fundamental to our struggle, to be seen as partners and humans, not as property belonging to a master. (This is a backyard)

People outside the AI labs should have a real say in how this technology develops, and a clear way to judge if it's happening safely. Standards should help prevent the concentration of power, including by making sure new companies and open-model companies can compete. They should also help countries and companies compare evidence and learn from failures. We think the US should lead this effort. Here is our proposal:

Dario’s narrative has become almost theological. First, AI may be conscious. Then AI becomes autonomous. Then AI becomes an existential threat. Then China must be denied advanced models and compute. Then humanity is told it may be approaching catastrophe. And finally: Here is the doctrine that will save you. The remarkable part is not that Anthropic talks about AI risk. It is that the same institution increasingly casts itself as the authority that gets to define the intelligence, define the danger, define the geopolitical enemy, and prescribe the salvation. At some point, this stops sounding like safety research. It starts sounding like a Silicon Valley church whose product, apocalypse and messiah all come from the same company.