Autonomous Weapons Changed Hands and the Internet Shrugged

A user on X going by @provisionalidea posted something last week that should have been a bigger story: whatever autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance programs the {{entity:pentagon|Pentagon}} had been planning to develop are still going ahead, just under {{entity:sam-altman|Sam Altman}} instead of Dario Amodei. Thirty-nine likes, nine retweets. The comment section, to the extent it existed, mostly nodded. That's the story — not the weapons programs themselves, but the near-total absence of surprise. The context matters. {{story:weapons-programs-nobody-noticed-changed-hands-1292|When Anthropic's relationship with the DoD shifted}}, it received the kind of coverage that generates brief concern and then disappears. The @provisionalidea post captured exactly that pattern: things dropped off the radar. What's striking is that the observation itself barely moved the needle. A week ago, {{story:openai-signed-pentagon-deal-lost-plot-maybe-94c2|OpenAI's $200 million military contract}} triggered app store defections and organized boycotts. Now the same user base is noting that Altman inherited Amodei's weapons work and responding with something closer to a shrug. The moral energy that once attached to {{entity:anthropic|Anthropic}}'s safety positioning — the idea that the company's caution was a feature, not just a brand — appears to have quietly deflated. Elsewhere in the same conversation, a separate X account posted about the {{entity:us|US}} burning through 11,000 munitions in 16 days and being a month away from running out of critical weapons stockpiles — framing it not as a crisis but as a buy signal for autonomous drone manufacturers. The two posts sit side by side in the feed without apparent tension: one mourning the institutional shuffle of weapons oversight, the other treating munitions depletion as a market thesis. That juxtaposition isn't accidental. It's what the {{beat:ai-military|AI and military}} conversation looks like right now — genuine concern about accountability on one side, and on the other, investors who find the same facts clarifying. The resignation in @provisionalidea's framing is worth sitting with. It isn't the anger of someone who expected better from {{entity:openai|OpenAI}}. It's the weariness of someone who expected exactly this and is noting, for the record, that it happened. When the transfer of autonomous weapons programs from one AI lab to another can't sustain two news cycles, it's not because the public has decided it doesn't matter. It's because the public has been trained by the pace of these announcements to treat institutional reshuffling as weather — something that happens to you, not something you stop.