https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/02/epstein-emails-...
Except, no, it's less reasonable than that because vegetarianism is much more central to animal welfare than transhumanism is to EA. So perhaps the analogy should be "Buddhist/Hitler goals"; some Buddhists are vegetarians and see vegetarianism as fundamental, some not.
Except, no, it's less reasonable than that because that link you provided doesn't actually give any indication that Epstein was a transhumanist, it just shows that he was into eugenics. So now we have an extra level of indirection: Epstein was a eugenicist; there's some overlap between eugenicists and transhumanists; there's some overlap between transhumanists and EAs; so if someone is an EA we should talk about their "EA/Epstein goals".
So I guess an appropriate analogy would be: Hitler was a vegetarian; there's substantial overlap between vegetarians and Buddhists; there's substantial overlap between Buddhists and pacifists; so if we discover that someone is a pacifist we should talk about their "pacifist/Hitler goals".
This style of thinking is absolutely toxic and I wish it would stop.
[EDITED to remove a first sentence that on reflection I think was not helpful.]
I'm not saying there's nothing there, but that link as you state it doesn't speak very much to ideological "alignment" between her and Epstein. The more plausible explanation is she wanted investment money, he was rich, she made an attempt to get it from him and it's nothing more than that (and she has bad judgement by not disassociating with him).
> I'll add that all of these people are extreme Zionists. Anthropic helped murder an entire school of girls in Iran. So I think it's more of a Hitler/Hitler situation.
That's a ridiculous overstatement: you make it sound like Anthropic was in the room knowingly making that decision, when it was more like some kind of Pentagon target analysis system used Claude.
Would you blame Intel if the app where someone hit the "OK, bombing approved" button was running on an Intel CPU?
In 2011 and 2012, Camilla Clark was trying to get funding for a pornographic movie. Someone put her in touch with Jeffrey Epstein, and he eventually said no. So far as I know, that is the extent of her connection with Epstein.
In 2014, Camilla Clark began dating Dario Amodei. They married in 2022.
Camilla Clark has, so far as I know, no connection at all with "effective altruism".
Dario Amodei has, so far as I know, no direct connection with "effective altruism" beyond the fact that he runs an AI company with some pretensions to care about safety, and many AI company employees, especially ones who claim to care about safety, are into "effective altruism".
So it goes something like this: EA -- Anthropic employees -- Dario Amodei -- Camilla Clark -- Jeffrey Epstein.
And on the basis of this you talk about "EA/Epstein goals" and claim that those (whatever they might actually be -- you have not so far mentioned any single goal that Epstein is known to share with EAs in general, never mind with Anthropic) are what Anthropic are trying to achieve. This is beyond ridiculous.
Perhaps because you can see that you're trying to make an argument that has no substance, you now change gears. "All of these people are extreme Zionists". All of them? Extreme? There's plenty to dislike about what Israel has been doing lately, but I find myself less convinced than I would like to be that what you mean isn't actually "look, lots of them are Jewish, and the Jews are bad". I don't like the historical precedents for where that sort of thinking leads.
And another screeching gear-change. The US military made use of an Anthropic model, and they didn't check what it said, and they ended up killing a lot of children. That's every bit as bad as you are suggesting but it doesn't have much to do with Anthropic. If they typed up the plans in Microsoft Word and discussed them with iPhones, are Microsoft and Apple also responsible for the murderous incompetence of (at least some) US military leadership?
(You may remember that Anthropic made a bit of news at around that time by being the only one of the major AI labs that made any attempt not to just roll over and do whatever the Pentagon wanted.)
Again, so far as I can tell none of this indicates any shared goals or values.
(It was all after Epstein's 2008 conviction. But the accusation here is that somehow this says something about Amodei's goals and values, or those of "effective altruism", rather than whether Amodei was willing to marry someone who once failed to do a background check on someone she was told might help fund her business.)