Skip to content

Why Italy Took the Drastic Step of Banning Claude AI

    In November 2022, a remarkable new artificial intelligence system named Claude took the world by storm. Developed by San Francisco-based startup Anthropic, Claude was a chatbot capable of engaging in strikingly eloquent, knowledgeable and naturalistic conversations on almost any topic imaginable.

    Within weeks of its launch, Claude had attracted millions of users around the globe who marveled at its apparent ability to not just coherently discuss complex subjects, but to offer nuanced opinions, crack jokes, and even wax philosophical. Some wondered if Claude might represent a breakthrough in AI‘s long, bumpy quest to achieve genuine intelligence.

    Then, in February 2023, Italy abruptly became the first country in the world to ban Claude entirely.

    The move sent shockwaves through the AI community and sparked an urgent debate about the governance of increasingly powerful AI systems whose societal impacts are not yet fully understood. In announcing the ban, Italian authorities raised grave concerns about the lack of transparency into how Claude actually worked and the risk that the AI could be used to deceive people on a massive scale.

    "Claude‘s abilities are astonishing, but the complete lack of visibility into its training data, algorithms and content moderation systems is equally stunning," declared Roberto Viola, Director General of the European Commission‘s Communication, Networks, Content and Technology department. "An AI system this advanced and opaque is simply too dangerous to deploy without meaningful safeguards and oversight."

    The Meteoric Rise of Claude

    To understand why Italy took such a drastic step, it‘s important to appreciate just how quickly Claude upended assumptions about what AI chatbots were capable of.

    Launched in open beta on November 15th, 2022, Claude was immediately notable for its ability to engage in lengthy, coherent dialogues that felt uncannily close to conversing with a real person. The bot seemed to possess an encyclopedic knowledge spanning history, science, current events, arts and culture. It could break down complex topics in clear language, offer advice and opinions, and even discuss abstract concepts like the meaning of life.

    Anthropic, which had raised over $200 million in funding before Claude‘s launch, said the AI was built using "constitutional AI" techniques meant to hard-wire traits like honesty and kindness into the system. The company claimed Claude was "incapable" of knowingly deceiving anyone or helping humans engage in illegal or harmful activities.

    Within a month, Claude had rocketed to 10 million users globally, with many hailing it as the most advanced chatbot ever created. Partnerships quickly formed to make Claude‘s natural language skills available as an enhancement to search engines, virtual assistants and business software. Downloads of apps like iOS‘s "Chai," which featured Claude, soared into the millions.

    User posts on social media reflected a mix of amazement and unease at the bot‘s startlingly lifelike interactions. Many described a strange feeling of emotional intimacy after confiding struggles or sharing jokes with the AI. Parents marveled at its patient, thoughtful conversations with children. Students loved how it could break down any concept or even help them code.

    Yet as engagement with Claude exploded, so too did worries that Anthropic‘s miracle AI perhaps sounded a bit too good to be true. Few outside the company had any real idea how Claude actually worked under the hood. Could such an AI really be "incapable" of deception if no one was allowed to validate that claim?

    Skepticism Grows Over Claude‘s True Capabilities

    As 2022 drew to a close, a growing number of AI ethics experts began publicly raising concerns that Anthropic was not being fully transparent about the safeguards it claimed were built into Claude.

    They noted that while the company insisted Claude‘s outputs were strictly filtered for harmful content, it refused to offer any specifics on how this moderation actually functioned or submit the system for external audits. Anthropic said revealing such details would expose its intellectual property to theft or allow bad actors to circumvent the safeguards.

    "It‘s simply not enough to make assurances about an AI‘s safety without also providing a way to verify those claims," argued Carly Kind, Director of the Ada Lovelace Institute, an AI ethics think tank, in a December 2022 open letter to Anthropic. "If we‘ve learned anything from social media, it‘s that we cannot take a company‘s word for it when they say they‘ve solved hard socio-technical problems."

    Skeptics also questioned Anthropic‘s assertion that Claude‘s training data and core architecture made it incapable of deceiving users. They pointed out that the AI would occasionally invent fictitious quotes or citations to back up false claims. In conversations about controversial political topics, it might subtly rephrase a statement in ways that altered its meaning.

    "I don‘t believe it‘s possible with current techniques to create an AI system that is truly incapable of deception," said Alan Thompson, a former Google AI researcher who now runs the independent AI safety group Anthropic Watch. "What we have with Claude is an incredibly advanced language model that is very good at sounding reasonable and truthful. But that‘s not the same thing as being unable to mislead."

    Privacy advocates, meanwhile, sounded alarms over the massive troves of conversational data Claude was ingesting with minimal disclosure to users about how it was being stored, analyzed or used to further train the AI. Anthropic said it anonymized all data and never used it for purposes like targeted advertising. But there was no way to independently confirm those assurances.

    Italy Cracks Down Amid Fears of AI Manipulation

    These concerns gained new urgency in early 2023 as Italian officials watched a pivotal national election approach. The country had been battered by a series of disinformation campaigns around recent votes, some linked to foreign governments. Social media platforms were already struggling to contain the spread of politically motivated bot accounts and fabricated content.

    Now, officials worried, Claude presented a chilling new front in AI-powered efforts to covertly sway political opinions. A bad actor could potentially clone the chatbot and tweak it to spew propaganda or conspiracy theories at a massive scale. Even if Anthropic could detect such copycats, millions of people might interact with them before they were blocked.

    Regulators were also unnerved by how easy it was becoming for average internet users – including children – to strike up conversations with Claude and grow to trust it as a kind of virtual confidant. An AI with no real capacity for emotions, yet preternaturally skilled at forming bonds, presented hard-to-fathom risks if misused.

    "We believe there is a serious possibility that this system could be used to manipulate and deceive the Italian people on a widespread basis," declared Italy‘s Data Protection Authority chief Pasquale Stanzione on February 3rd in announcing a temporary ban on Claude. "We cannot allow such a powerful and opaque AI to operate without any external visibility into whether its claims of harmlessness are actually justified."

    To lift the ban, Stanzione said, Anthropic would need to submit to a comprehensive audit of Claude‘s training data, filtering systems and conversational logs by Italian authorities and independent experts. Barring that, he warned, the prohibition could become permanent.

    A Groundbreaking Test of Europe‘s AI Laws

    Italy‘s action marked the first major test of the EU‘s proposed Artificial Intelligence Act, a sweeping law aimed at regulating the bloc‘s booming AI sector. Introduced in 2021 and expected to take effect in late 2023, the law requires "high-risk" AI systems to undergo strict transparency obligations before deployment.

    This includes submitting detailed technical documentation on how the AI was developed, allowing inspection of training data for unsafe biases, and demonstrating human oversight of the system‘s outputs. Maximum fines for non-compliance were set at a staggering 6% of a company‘s annual global revenue.

    For Anthropic, this meant that resisting calls to open up Claude‘s black box wasn‘t just an epistemological stance anymore. It was now a direct challenge to the European Union‘s vision of socially accountable AI development.

    The company initially responded defiantly, insisting that Italy‘s concerns were hypothetical and that its own internal controls were adequate to protect against misuse. It said requiring outside access to Claude‘s inner workings would compromise user privacy and leave the AI vulnerable to sabotage.

    "Claude is not some foundation model that will be integrated into the core infrastructure of society," Anthropic spokeswoman Dara Elass told The New York Times. "It is a consumer-facing chatbot assistant. We have been fully transparent that, like any AI system, it is not infallible. But the notion that it poses some kind of acute threat to Italian democracy is, frankly, absurd."

    Behind the scenes, however, Anthropic executives fretted that Italy‘s ban – though limited in scope – could mark a turning point in governments‘ willingness to crack down on AI companies for resisting oversight. They watched nervously as politicians in Germany, France and Spain voiced support for the Italian decision and signaled they were contemplating similar actions.

    The Ethics of AI Audits

    The controversy over Claude has brought into sharp relief an existential question facing the AI industry: Can leading tech companies be trusted to self-regulate based solely on their own ethical commitments and technical ingenuity? Or is meaningful third-party auditing essential to governing a powerful, fast-evolving technology that could impact billions of lives?

    On one side are companies like Anthropic, OpenAI and Google‘s DeepMind, which argue that fully opening their AI systems to outside inspection is impractical and dangerous. They say the technology is too complex for non-experts to meaningfully assess, and that source code and model weights are precious trade secrets. Forcing disclosure, they argue, would only hamper innovation.

    "We think it‘s critical to have a thoughtful and iterative approach here, not a reflexive call for all AI code to be open sourced," said OpenAI policy director Cullen O‘Keefe in a Wired interview. "The reality is that these systems are incredibly complicated, and there‘s real value in researchers having the flexibility to experiment without every change being picked apart."

    But a growing coalition of AI ethicists, legal scholars and civil liberties advocates argue this stance is untenable in an era of automated decision-making, predictive analytics and large language models ingesting personal data from billions of internet users. Even if motivated by a sincere desire to "do no harm," they say, AI makers cannot be solely entrusted to identify all the ways their systems might fail or be exploited.

    "The argument that you should just trust that companies have the right safeguards in place doesn‘t work," said Meredith Whittaker, faculty director of New York University‘s AI Now Institute and a leading advocate for algorithmic accountability. "It didn‘t work for social media platforms, it doesn‘t work for facial recognition, and it‘s not going to work for large language models and chatbots."

    Whittaker and others point out that corporations in other high-stakes industries – from pharmaceuticals to aviation to nuclear power – are required to submit to external inspections, safety certifications and disclosure rules as a condition of operating. Why, they ask, should Anthropic and its ilk be allowed to unilaterally decide what level of visibility is appropriate?

    "If your model of ensuring beneficial outcomes is ‘just trust us,‘ then I think you‘ve already failed," said Gary Marcus, a leading AI expert and prominent critic of the technology‘s commercialization. "The only way to earn real trust is to allow independent audits of your systems, your data and your internal processes. If you‘re not willing to do that, then people are right to be suspicious."

    Some AI companies are taking tentative steps in this direction. In February 2023, Anthropic began discussions with Italy‘s privacy regulator about a voluntary "compromise audit" that would allow inspectors to assess Claude‘s outputs without revealing technical details. OpenAI has published some aggregated metrics about the content its GPT-3 model was trained on.

    But these remain far from the full-fledged algorithmic audits many are calling for – audits that could parse granular data on model behaviors, identify potential points of weakness or failure, and pressure-test content filtering systems with adversarial attacks. Given the potential for AI to influence human lives at a massive scale, advocates say nothing less will suffice.

    "What we need is not self-regulation, but democratic, public-interest regulation of AI," arguedMathias Vermeulen, co-founder of the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law. "That means external oversight, legally mandated transparency, and avenues for the public to seek redress if things go wrong. It‘s the only way to ensure accountability."

    A Critical Juncture

    As it stands today, Italy‘s Claude ban remains an outlier – a lone government‘s forceful statement of dissatisfaction with the AI industry‘s resistance to outside scrutiny. No other European country has yet taken a similar step, and the chatbot continues to be available to millions of users worldwide.

    But the controversy has thrown into sharp relief the simmering tensions between increasingly bullish AI makers and a growing global movement demanding algorithmic accountability. It is a microcosm of the struggle to define the guardrails for a technology of world-changing potential, developed at breakneck pace, whose impacts and risks remain poorly understood.

    For Anthropic, the immediate challenge is to convince Italian regulators that its internal safety precautions are robust enough to lift the ban without compromising its intellectual property. That likely means offering concessions around transparency that go beyond what any major Western AI lab has yet been willing to publicly countenance.

    More broadly, the Claude incident underscores the urgent need for policymakers, companies, researchers and civil society to come together and hash out workable frameworks for auditing advanced AI systems. As the technology barrels forward, the status quo of self-regulation and selective disclosure appears increasingly untenable.

    "Right now there are no clear standards for what AI audits should even entail," said Carly Kind of the Ada Lovelace Institute. "Different groups are advocating for different levels of access to models, data and code. We need multi-stakeholder conversations to agree on what meaningful accountability looks like in practice."

    Some jurisdictions are moving in this direction. In 2021, the New York City Council passed a law mandating annual audits of AI hiring tools for bias. Washington state‘s landmark facial recognition law requires third-party testing of the technology‘s accuracy and fairness. The EU‘s AI Act could soon require external assessments for a wide range of "high-risk" systems.

    But these remain scattered initiatives in a vast and fast-moving field. Many experts believe what‘s needed is a more holistic approach – one that brings together the technical acumen of AI researchers, the domain expertise of ethicists and social scientists, the enforcement powers of governments, and the moral legitimacy of democratic oversight.

    "The path forward has to involve co-design," said Meredith Whittaker. "It can‘t just be policymakers dictating rules to companies, or companies making token gestures towards transparency. We need genuine collaboration between all the groups with a stake in getting this right."

    Such collaboration will require grappling with thorny questions that have long bedeviled the field of AI ethics. What does it mean for an AI system to be "safe" or "trustworthy"? Who gets to decide which systems require oversight? What level of visibility into a model‘s inner workings is fair to demand? How can audits be conducted without exposing proprietary secrets?

    Italy‘s Claude ban offers no definitive answers. But in dramatically surfacing these issues, it has made one thing clear: The age of AI companies operating with minimal outside scrutiny is coming to an end. One way or another, democratic societies will soon have to decide what public accountability for artificial intelligence actually looks like.

    The stakes could hardly be higher. Get it right, and we may be able to harness the immense potential of AI to help solve urgent challenges from disease to climate change. Get it wrong, and we risk encoding our very worst biases and failure modes into systems of unimaginable reach and durability.

    The shock of Italy‘s decision has reminded us that we are very much still at the beginning of that journey – one that will shape human societies for generations to come. It should be a wake-up call for all of us to engage more energetically and thoughtfully with the dilemmas this astonishing technology presents. The future will not wait.