The Shadow of GPT-5 Development: The "Claude Shock" - Why Did the AI Alliance Fall Apart? : Anthropic Blocks Access to OpenAI's Claude Model, What's the Background?

1. Shocking Announcement — The Impact of "Claude API Cutoff"

On August 2, at 9:55 AM Pacific Time, a headline appeared in TechCrunch: "Anthropic cuts off OpenAI’s access to its Claude models." This news, which began with just a few lines in the In Brief section, immediately sent ripples through the developer community.

A few hours later, WIRED reported on the detailed background. Multiple sources claimed, "OpenAI directly connected the Claude API to internal tools and compared it with their own models in coding, writing, and safety."WIRED

2. Breach of Terms or Industry Practice?

Anthropic spokesperson Christopher Naulty explained, "Claude Code is widely used by developers, but using it to develop competitive models violates our commercial terms." OpenAI countered, "Benchmarking other models is an industry standard for improving safety. Our API is also open to Anthropic," highlighting a stark disagreement between the two statements.WIRED

3. Past Precedents — The Windsurf Incident and Resource Strain

This measure is not a "first offense." In June, Anthropic abruptly cut off direct access to AI coding startup Windsurf. CSO Jared Kaplan commented, "Selling Claude to OpenAI is strange."
Furthermore, at the end of July, a weekly rate limit was introduced due to "power users of Claude Code consuming GPU resources excessively."

These series of "tightening" measures are seen as Anthropic's response to concerns about "excessive consumption" by competitors and heavy users, despite receiving significant investments from Amazon and Google while still facing computational resource constraints.

4. Public Opinion on Social Media — Mixed Reactions and Developer Concerns

On X (formerly Twitter), where information spread rapidly, comments from stakeholders and experts were exchanged.

Supporters argue, "It's only natural not to let competitors ride for free," while opponents warn, "If Big Tech strengthens its enclosures, the culture of open verification will die." On the developer forum Stack Overflow, cries of "Builds failed due to sudden restrictions" were heard, and startups heavily reliant on Claude are scrambling to find alternative models.

5. Benchmark Wars and the Double Standard of "Safety"

In AI research, measuring the performance of other models is essential. However, in recent years, "safety comparisons" between models have been elevated to critical issues related to regulations and reputation. OpenAI has elevated "External Model Eval" to a mandatory process in its internal documents, and Anthropic announced a similar policy in March this year.

However, both companies are reluctant to allowcompetitors to access their models. Anthropic claims to allow "minimal access for safety evaluation purposes," but the criteria for this judgment are not disclosed. OpenAI also prohibits the use of GPT-4/4o for "developing equivalent services" in its commercial terms of use, and many point out that this incident is a "boomerang."

6. Legal Issues — Antitrust Law and Platform Responsibility

Legal scholars point out that "when a company provides a platform while also competing in the same field, refusal to deal can create an 'essential facilities' issue under antitrust law." The US FTC is already investigating exclusionary practices in the cloud/AI market, and this case is likely to become a subject of investigation. The EU DMA (Digital Markets Act) also prohibits "self-preferencing" and "data walls," and AI APIs will likely become a new touchstone.

7. Future Scenarios

1. Limited Reconciliation

   • Clarify the scope of benchmarking and grant OpenAI a limited token quota.

2. Full Confrontation

   • Both parties completely block each other's APIs, with third-party evaluation agencies and regulatory authorities intervening.

3. Cloud Alliance Reorganization

   • The Anthropic camp (Amazon/Google) and the OpenAI camp (Microsoft) deepen their partnerships in cloud and GPU resources, affecting users through a "territorial battle."

In any scenario, the key factors aresecuring computational resourcesandtransparency of safety indicators. The "API diplomacy" of AI companies has now entered a geopolitical game balancing technological hegemony and regulatory risks, rather than being merely a business contract.

8. Recommendations for Developers

• Multi-Model Strategy: Redundancy with APIs from three or more major providers.

• Utilization of Local LLMs: If GPU costs allow, self-hosting Mistral or Llama 3 series as "insurance."

• Terms of Use Watch: Each company's ToS is revised semi-annually. Set up automatic Diff monitoring.

• Legal Risk Assessment: Incorporate not only copyright and privacy issues of generated content but also API cutoff risks into the SLA.

9. Conclusion — The Ideal and Reality of "Open AI"

Both OpenAI and Anthropic claim to "openly spread safe and reliable AI." However, in reality, they close the doors of their APIs to protect their competitive advantage — revealing such duality. The Claude shock has highlighted the structural contradictions within the AI ecosystem.
If developers, startups, researchers, and regulatory authorities all desire "transparent and interoperable AI," new rules concerning not only technical specifications but also fairness of access are urgently needed.

Powered by Froala Editor