Anthropic, a company founded by OpenAI exiles worried about the dangers of AI, is loosening its core safety principle in response to competition.

Instead of self-imposed guardrails constraining its development of AI models, Anthropic is adopting a nonbinding safety framework that it says can and will change.

In a blog post Tuesday outlining its new policy, Anthropic said shortcomings in its two-year-old Responsible Scaling Policy could hinder its ability to compete in a rapidly growing AI market.

The announcement is surprising, because Anthropic has described itself as the AI company with a “soul.” It also comes the same week that Anthropic is fighting a significant battle with the Pentagon over AI red lines.

It’s not clear that Anthropic’s change is related to its meeting Tuesday with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who gave Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei an ultimatum to roll back the company’s AI safeguards or risk losing a $200 million Pentagon contract. The Pentagon threatened to put Anthropic on what is effectively a government blacklist.

But the company said in its blog post that its previous safety policy was designed to build industry consensus around mitigating AI risks – guardrails that the industry blew through. Anthropic also noted its safety policy was out of step with Washington’s current anti-regulatory political climate.

Anthropic’s previous policy stipulated that it should pause training more powerful models if their capabilities outstripped the company’s ability to control them and ensure their safety — a measure that’s been removed in the new policy. Anthropic argued that responsible AI developers pausing growth while less careful actors plowed ahead could “result in a world that is less safe.”

As part of the new policy, Anthropic said it will separate its own safety plans from its recommendations for the AI industry.

Anthropic wrote that it had hoped its original safety principles “would encourage other AI companies to introduce similar policies. This is the idea of a ‘race to the top’ (the converse of a ‘race to the bottom’), in which different industry players are incentivized to improve, rather than weaken, their models’ safeguards and their overall safety posture.”