In a report describing misuses of its A.I. models, Anthropic said it could not determine whether the research served a legitimate or nefarious purpose because valid biological inquiry — the kind that can lead to breakthroughs like vaccines — can also help engineer dangerous pathogens. In the face of that uncertainty, Anthropic said it erred on the side of caution because the consequences of missing malicious activity could be severe.
[...]
Anthropic documented another genre of abuse it said was new: attempts to use Claude to develop software for conventional weapons design and development, including firearms, missiles, armed drones and bombs. It detailed three cases in China, two in Russia and one in Yemen.

Part of me appreciates the transparency; another part sees it as something that people are going to use to attack these companies, who are erring on the side of caution and going above and beyond what is legally required. If people, politicians, the media, etc. use reports like this to demonize Anthropic, you end up with them not disclosing things publicly to avoid the outcry. It's a catch-22 if people react in a way that ignores what Anthropic is doing to safeguard people and the tech.