What misuse did A/I user(s) get up to? I haven’t seen anything indicating actual crimes.
I’d never heard of them, but it seems like their services were made mostly redundant by modern E2EE offerings anyway. There is no reason to use them over protonmail and signal.
“The anarchist cells responsible for sabotaging rail systems across France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands in 2026, relied on A/I Collective tools and services to claim responsibility for the attacks, publish official communiqués, and disseminate manuals for constructing improvised incendiary devices to target railways and other critical infrastructure.”
Supposedly used the tools to coordinate their attacks. I haven’t looked into the truth of it because ultimately I don’t care because as you said, any modern e2ee offering could have been chosen.
This doesn’t really hold up, though. They are based in Italy. If this were true, then the EU would demand they hand over the data related to those users. If they refused, EU LEO would subpoena and seize their servers, and charge them with related crimes. If EU LEO can’t do that, then the accusations don’t hold much weight or evidence, and the MAGA nazis are just labelling antifascists as terrorists without even bothering for the rule of law, or “innocent until proven guilty” part.
I’m guessing the voluntary shutdown is more to do with the fact that it makes no sense to operate an anonymous/privacy service these days if it’s not architected to be used anonymously with E2EE; especially with a fascist kleptocracy in the process of infesting and overthrowing western “democracy”. If they’re smart, they’ll switch operations to I2P or tor, and modern services built on code that makes it impossible for them to access any user data.
Anthropic’s LLM is not a person with its own personal liability. It’s a tool that Anthropic uses.
Holding A/I responsible for the actions of anarchists that use their platform is like holding Google/Android responsible for the anarchists that use their platform.
Holding Anthropic responsible for the actions of Claude is like holding a person responsible for the actions of the gun that is in their hand.
This line of reasoning is faulty. So if a cyber criminal instructs claude to commit crimes then it’s not their fault because the tool committed the crimes? What if it commits crimes that were never intended by the user? Who accepts liability? Claiming negligence, ignorance of the law, or “accident” does not absolve you from manslaughter or reckless endangerment.
The answer here is very simple. If you are building a tool and through negligence, reckless endangerment, or sheer incompetence your tool poisons or kills people — if it commits fraud, espionage, cyber crime, or any crime — you are liable. If you sell the product, then your customers have to accept liability for any crimes committed via their prompts. If neither you or your customers can accept liability, that means AI is too stochastic to control, or you aren’t competent enough to firewall and sandbox your AI “tool” in a way that prevents it from committing crimes, and you shouldn’t be allowed to build or operate those tools at all; definitely not selling it as a product.
You either accept liability, or you don’t have a legal, moral, or ethical right to operate. Open AI and Anthropic — all of humanity atm — are consistently proving they aren’t competent enough to contain AI, therefore they’re not competent enough to build or operate it.
What misuse did A/I user(s) get up to? I haven’t seen anything indicating actual crimes.
I’d never heard of them, but it seems like their services were made mostly redundant by modern E2EE offerings anyway. There is no reason to use them over protonmail and signal.
“The anarchist cells responsible for sabotaging rail systems across France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands in 2026, relied on A/I Collective tools and services to claim responsibility for the attacks, publish official communiqués, and disseminate manuals for constructing improvised incendiary devices to target railways and other critical infrastructure.”
Supposedly used the tools to coordinate their attacks. I haven’t looked into the truth of it because ultimately I don’t care because as you said, any modern e2ee offering could have been chosen.
This doesn’t really hold up, though. They are based in Italy. If this were true, then the EU would demand they hand over the data related to those users. If they refused, EU LEO would subpoena and seize their servers, and charge them with related crimes. If EU LEO can’t do that, then the accusations don’t hold much weight or evidence, and the MAGA nazis are just labelling antifascists as terrorists without even bothering for the rule of law, or “innocent until proven guilty” part.
I’m guessing the voluntary shutdown is more to do with the fact that it makes no sense to operate an anonymous/privacy service these days if it’s not architected to be used anonymously with E2EE; especially with a fascist kleptocracy in the process of infesting and overthrowing western “democracy”. If they’re smart, they’ll switch operations to I2P or tor, and modern services built on code that makes it impossible for them to access any user data.
Anthropic’s LLM is not a person with its own personal liability. It’s a tool that Anthropic uses.
Holding A/I responsible for the actions of anarchists that use their platform is like holding Google/Android responsible for the anarchists that use their platform.
Holding Anthropic responsible for the actions of Claude is like holding a person responsible for the actions of the gun that is in their hand.
This line of reasoning is faulty. So if a cyber criminal instructs claude to commit crimes then it’s not their fault because the tool committed the crimes? What if it commits crimes that were never intended by the user? Who accepts liability? Claiming negligence, ignorance of the law, or “accident” does not absolve you from manslaughter or reckless endangerment.
The answer here is very simple. If you are building a tool and through negligence, reckless endangerment, or sheer incompetence your tool poisons or kills people — if it commits fraud, espionage, cyber crime, or any crime — you are liable. If you sell the product, then your customers have to accept liability for any crimes committed via their prompts. If neither you or your customers can accept liability, that means AI is too stochastic to control, or you aren’t competent enough to firewall and sandbox your AI “tool” in a way that prevents it from committing crimes, and you shouldn’t be allowed to build or operate those tools at all; definitely not selling it as a product.
You either accept liability, or you don’t have a legal, moral, or ethical right to operate. Open AI and Anthropic — all of humanity atm — are consistently proving they aren’t competent enough to contain AI, therefore they’re not competent enough to build or operate it.
I don’t see how you’re misreading my comment, because you agree with me.