David Sacks sharply criticized Anthropic over what he described as a contradiction between the company’s public warnings about artificial intelligence risks and the projects it continues to pursue, arguing that its actions raise questions about whether federal authorities should take a closer look.

Sacks focused particularly on Anthropic’s work involving advanced AI development and a planned cloud-powered wet lab in San Francisco, saying the company appears to be advancing precisely the kinds of capabilities it has warned could become dangerous.

"Here, but I do think that there are potential externalities from having the number one frontier model company run by a religious cult," Sacks said.

He then pointed to the wet lab project as an example of what he considers an inconsistency in the company’s approach to safety.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

"So, for example, they are opening a clod-powered wet lab in the middle of San Francisco at the same time they're warning of bio risk. Yyou know."

Sacks argued that the same contradiction can be seen in Anthropic’s broader development of frontier AI systems. In his view, the company warns that advanced artificial intelligence needs to be slowed or carefully controlled while simultaneously continuing to push the technology forward.

"At the same time, they say that we have to pace the frontier. They're extending the frontier."

He also highlighted warnings about the possibility of superintelligent systems becoming difficult or impossible for humans to control.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

"At the same time that they are saying that there's a risk of superintelligence growing beyond our control, they're programming it to grow beyond our control."

Sacks said that combination of rhetoric and development decisions could create significant consequences beyond the company itself.

"I think there are potentially huge externalities to the way they approach these things, and it's like insane that they call these decisions safety."

He rejected the idea that the decisions he was describing should be characterized as cautious or safety-oriented.

"These are not safe decisions. These are crazy decisions. It seems to me."

Sacks said the tension between Anthropic’s public warnings and its actions is why he has used unusually harsh language to describe the company.

"This is why I've called this a schizophrenic company. Is they appear to be not only hypocritical, but they're doing the things that they say they are most afraid of, like what is going on here?"

He added, "This is bizarre, and I, you know, I don't know where this all leads."

Sacks ultimately suggested that the situation may warrant federal scrutiny, though he stopped short of laying out a specific investigative proposal.

"I do think there's an argument for like a federal SWAT team to come blasting in there and shutting the feds in, figuring out what's going on."

He then acknowledged uncertainty about exactly what action should follow.

"I don't know because I mean, what they're doing does seem really sus to me."

Trump SI Czar Rips Anthropic’s Hypocrisy: Warns of Bio Risk, Opens SI-Powered Wet Lab in San Francisco

SACKS: “… they say that we have to pace the frontier. They're extending the frontier at the same… This is why I've called this a schizophrenic company. Is they appear to be not only hypocritical, but they're doing the things that they say they are most afraid of…” — UngaTheGreat (@UngaTheGreat) October 11, 2026

Sacks’ criticism centers on what he sees as a credibility problem in Anthropic’s safety posture. His argument is not simply that the company is developing advanced artificial intelligence, but that it is continuing to expand frontier capabilities and biological research infrastructure while publicly emphasizing the dangers associated with both.

For Sacks, that gap between stated concern and continued development raises larger questions about how AI companies define safety, how much risk they are willing to accept and whether their own warnings should trigger greater scrutiny of the projects they are pursuing.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.