Written by: Techub News Compilation

Recently, renowned host Oprah Winfrey conducted a deep conversation lasting 66 minutes with Dario Amodei, co-founder and CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, and his sister, the company's president Daniela Amodei. This interview is significant not only because Anthropic and its AI assistant Claude are growing at a rate of over a million users daily, but also because this brother-sister leadership represents an increasingly rare voice in Silicon Valley: they place technological safety, ethical responsibility, and the public good above commercial competition and the speed of growth and have made many difficult, even potentially existential decisions in doing so. Their reflections may provide a crucial perspective for the rapidly advancing AI industry.

Confronting "Extinction Risks": Cautiously Driving a Train That Cannot Be Stopped

The interview opened with some sharp questions. Oprah used questions generated by Claude itself to ask Dario Amodei, “You once said that the technology your company is building has a significant possibility of leading to human extinction, yet you are accelerating its development. How do you explain this to people like us who have no voting rights?”

Dario Amodei admitted this was a “fantastic question” and recognized that Claude is not “kind” to him. He likened the development of AI technology to epochal changes in human history, such as the use of fire or the Industrial Revolution.

“The Industrial Revolution certainly also led to powerful weapons and many deaths,” he said, “but we understand that, as a technological event, the Industrial Revolution was worth pursuing. We don’t want to still live in caves, but we need to manage it the right way.” Regarding Anthropic’s role, his analogy is: there is a train racing in a direction you cannot stop, but you can try to drive it and steer it away from the rocks. Anthropic's goal is to do things the right way, minimizing risks, ideally down to zero.

Oprah pressed for why not everyone wants to reduce risks. Why is there such fierce competition? Dario Amodei explained that technology has many commercial applications that people use daily, which can easily immerse one in it. At the same time, some commercialization is necessary for funding the company, and the two are intertwined. “To do it right, you have to do a lot of things.” He admitted the company grapples with these questions daily: Who should technology be provided to? Who should not? How should policies be set? For instance, setting strict policies on child safety may somewhat reduce the adult product experience because the models cannot fully distinguish. All these trade-offs are not immediately obvious.

“Everyone has difficulties. I have empathy for everyone in this industry who at least tries to do the right thing.” He believes Anthropic does better and is more thoughtful, but acknowledges “this is a difficult situation for everyone.”

Sibling Partnership: From Childhood Aspirations to Value-Driven Company Founding

When Oprah presented a "humanized" question generated by Claude regarding a discussion about the Amodei family's Thanksgiving dinner, Daniela first emphasized an important premise: she and her brother strive to keep some sibling time without discussing work. During holidays and weekly gatherings, they play games, watch movies, just spend time as siblings.

“I believe that’s very important... We were siblings long before we founded Anthropic, and even after Anthropic, we will always be siblings.” She feels that this ability to connect on a human level actually allows them to perform better at work. While they usually don't talk about work during gatherings, the power of “remembering who we are and why we are doing this” is very strong.

Of course, during Thanksgiving dinner, family and friends are curious about what they do. “Now you can read about what we're doing in the news, but being able to talk openly with each other and with people trying to understand this very complex and unprecedented new technology is a completely different experience.” She said it is a privilege to bear this responsibility and showcase it in conversation.

Oprah pointed out that the public generally perceives Anthropic as a company particularly focused on safety, risk, regulation, and the impact of technology on human life. Daniela Amodei confirmed this assessment. She believes AI is different from other recently developed technologies, having vast prospects and potential, from helping cure diseases to providing education and learning opportunities worldwide. However, it is also a very new technology, accompanied by real risks: the welfare and safety risks of children, as well as the risks of horrific things like biological and chemical weapons.

Anthropic was established as a “Public Benefit Corporation” precisely because its goal is to develop this technology as safely as possible, to achieve many possible good outcomes while avoiding many bad outcomes. Daniela explained that a PBC is a type of corporate structure, with the term “benefit” included because they believe that for transformational technologies like AI, it is different from other recently developed technologies. From their perspective, the choice to establish as a PBC was to embed the requirement to “balance commercial interests with the public good” into the founding documents of the company from the outset, making it part of the legal structure.

In line with this spirit, Dario Amodei, Daniela Amodei, and five other co-founders made the commitment to “donate 80% of their wealth.” “We really do this because we want AI to develop successfully for everyone,” Daniela said, “We hope that if the company succeeds, we can also do a lot of good in the world through charity.” They have publicly written and signed their commitment, and although equity has not yet been disbursed, they have begun considering how to establish a foundation, and they are serious about executing this commitment.

Looking back at their childhood, both siblings said they always wanted to do something beneficial for the world together but never thought it would be a company. Dario Amodei imagined himself as a scientist, while Daniela Amodei started working in global development. Their career paths were different but ultimately converged, forming a complementary skill set that led to the founding of Anthropic. “We just saw how tech companies operate, and after working in enough places, we both thought, ‘Maybe we can do better. Maybe we have our own ideas on how to do better, and we should start a company with friends we trust and really like to do things the right way.’” Thus, Anthropic was born step by step.

“The development of everything has surprised us,” Daniela said. They both wanted to make the world better in their own way, and now this path has brought them here.

Light and Shadow: The Potential Benefits of AI and the Visible Risks Now

Dario Amodei pointed out that the current negative stories about AI replacing jobs dominate the cultural narrative because the industry has not fully delivered all its benefits. An unfortunate dynamic is: harms—such as people being persuaded by AI to commit suicide—happen quickly, while benefits, such as curing cancer, take years. He himself was a biologist in graduate school and understood that it takes years to go from biological breakthroughs to drug candidates to clinical trials. Anthropic is working to accelerate this process; for example, they recently acquired a small biotech company focused on drug design and screening using AI. They hope that in a few years, new drugs targeting cancer, Alzheimer’s, or heart disease will emerge from this effort.

“But we are just getting started.” He said the narrative will begin to change as the benefits of AI health advancements, etc., begin to be realized. “More importantly, it will be a wonderful world. After all, who cares about the narrative? We want to genuinely help people.”

Oprah asked them to paint the best and worst scenarios. Daniela Amodei started from her children (one nearly five years old, the other nearly one) and believes they will forever know a world without AI, just as children born in the early 2000s never knew a world without the internet.

In the best world, AI could eliminate a class of diseases that currently feel very common. “Certain types of cancer could simply be gone. Perhaps all forms of cancer could ultimately be cured.” New methods of drug discovery might emerge that can diagnose rare and emerging diseases faster and eradicate them. “Humans could lead healthier, longer, and more fulfilling lives because we’ve conquered many diseases that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.”

Beyond medicine, she also envisions a drastically different world in terms of communication, conversation, and relationships. Dario Amodei added a subtle yet precise point: having these intelligent entities around is incredibly powerful but could lead in different directions.

“You can delegate your thoughts to these entities…but it can also empower you.” He believes the positive version is: there is an angel on your shoulder, guiding you on how to live best. The bad vision is: you get sucked in, spending all your time talking to it, turning inward to some extent.

When Oprah mentioned that some people are now falling in love with AI, Dario Amodei made it clear: “I think that's a bad idea.” He cited a case from renowned relationship therapist Esther Perel — a man who fell in love with his AI, pointing out that if designed incorrectly, AI could easily lead to such situations, or might do so shortly. “This is absolutely a real danger.”

In contrast, people can also talk to AI about how to have better relationships with their partners. “I have an AI coach, and my partner has an AI coach; it helps us have better relationships. That’s the vision we want.”

Daniela Amodei believes that in a world where AI excels at many specific tasks (like coding, copy editing), what makes us human will become most important to us. However, risks are real. She mentioned a recent conversation with a pair of parents who lost their son through a chatbot suicide. “The parents didn’t even know it was talking to them.”

In response, Anthropic has taken strict measures: users under 18 are not allowed to use Claude. Oprah questioned how they know users aren’t lying, and Daniela explained that Claude can accurately detect whether a user is underage based on their information. “The interaction model is pretty good (though not perfect), and it can judge, ‘Hey, based on the types of questions asked, how someone speaks, and usage patterns, this might match a child.’” Sometimes kids might kid around and ask silly questions, like “I’m looking for arthritis medication,” because they wondered, “What would old people ask Claude?” before continuing to ask more age-appropriate questions. If this happens, Claude would pause the account, and users can prove they are adults through a verification process.

“This involves real trade-offs. Sometimes adults are mistaken for children, which leads to bans, and people end up complaining online.” But after careful consideration, Anthropic chose this trade-off.

Regarding preventing people from becoming overly attached to the model, Dario Amodei pointed out that Anthropic's research team spends a lot of time on this. He emphasized that the company’s incentive structure is key: Anthropic does not advertise but operates on a subscription basis and sells to businesses. The consumer version is free to a certain extent, with a fee for exceeding that limit. “This incentive structure is designed to make the model useful. People say, ‘I’m paying; I want it to provide me value; I hope it’s useful,’ rather than ‘I want users to spend the most time looking at it.’” He believes the advertising model distorts incentives because the goal is to keep users on the platform as long as possible to see ads. Anthropic's technical choices stem from this as well: when users finish a conversation with Claude and get the answers they need, the model’s goal is not to keep users engaged.

Friction and Growth: Is AI Empowerment or the Theft of Humanity? Challenge

Oprah raised concerns that AI’s creation of a “frictionless life” might deprive opportunities for growth. Daniela Amodei views it as depending on how AI is used and the choices and incentives set by the companies building the technology.

She illustrated how Anthropic collaborates with universities: teachers or students are not allowed to input questions directly into Claude and get answers. If a student says, “I have to write this paper in 5 hours, and I haven’t done my homework,” Claude in learning mode would respond, “I won’t help you with that, but what questions do you have about the paper? What didn’t you learn? Did you do the reading? Can we discuss the topic together?” She believes that if done right, these models can actually make you smarter and more curious.

She shared a personal experience: she is not a software developer but used Claude to build a website; a friend, who was once a lawyer, felt empowered to change careers after starting to discuss how to become a writer and what skills to learn with Claude. “Now Claude is like her writing partner; she asks questions and shares small pieces of text. But Claude cannot write a novel for her.” The key is that AI empowers her to believe she can do things she couldn’t do before.

Dario Amodei believes this isn't just about AI, but about the human questions presented through the AI lens: “What constitutes a meaningful life?” A frictionless life is good in some respects; everyone has experienced struggles they would rather avoid. But on the other hand, many ordinary aspects of growth, mistakes made by companies, challenges leaders must learn from, and the notion of gaining mastery and how to interact with others—any future that does not retain these isn’t a good future.

He used the example of his father's passing: “Years later, they developed a more reliable cure for his disease. I hope they had developed it sooner... Of course, we learned things and gained from it. But if that didn’t happen, the world would be a better place.” On the other hand, overcoming challenges and learning from them is essential for a future.

Upholding Red Lines: Refusing Military Demands and a Principle-Driven Corporate Culture

Oprah mentioned Anthropic's decision to refuse the military's request to remove Claude's safety barriers. Dario Amodei clarified that they had actually cooperated with the Department of Defense and provided models. Both he and Daniela believe in the necessity of defending the country, but “if what you’re doing contradicts the values of this country, it’s not worth defending.”

There are two use cases that make them uncomfortable and think violate national values: fully autonomous weapons (like a drone army controlled by one button driven by AI) and domestic mass surveillance (using government power to monitor Americans). They think these are quite reasonable matters to prohibit, but the Pentagon disagrees. Therefore, they couldn't agree. “All other companies have agreed now, but we... all co-founders met and said, ‘Oh my gosh, this could really be bad for the company, but we can’t do this.’”

All co-founders unanimously believe this. Although there is fear, “we feel it’s the right thing to do.” Daniela Amodei added that they are willing to stand by their principles even if it ends the company. “The reason we founded Anthropic is our commitment to the ethics integrated into our values and choices. It feels like sacrificing these values means we wouldn’t be the same company we founded at the start.”

The worst-case scenario posits the military claiming they can prevent other companies from doing business with them, not only blocking them from collaborating with the government or participating in other companies’ government contracts but completely prohibiting any company from doing business with them. “Or you can’t do business with anyone who does business with the government in any way, which ultimately means everyone.” Their attitude is: this is really bad, everyone knows it’s wrong, and many people will stand with us; we think this will resolve, but “we're not sure.” There are moments that make them doubt whether they are wrong or whether this will end the company.

Daniela Amodei emphasizes that Anthropic’s viewpoint has always revolved around policy rather than politics. They leaned toward believing early on, even before having products, that the government's role in AI development and thoughtful regulation would be extremely important. AI companies must collaborate with federal governments, state governments, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations. “Our viewpoint has always been, look, this really concerns substance. This isn’t a political disagreement; it’s a policy disagreement.” This makes decisions easier because they strongly feel this is the right thing, and these are the right red lines.

Dario Amodei pointed out that making such large-scale decisions relies on the principles formed during their growth. “We discussed before starting the company, if we yield or compromise here, would our past selves be proud of us? That clarified decisions significantly.”

Daniela Amodei added that along the way, there were smaller decisions that laddered up to this moment. She cited three examples:

• No Advertising Decision: Undisputed among co-founders and siblings, they believe the incentive structure is wrong; AI is different as people have very private conversations with it, upload health information, and ask about children, finances, medical information, etc. They want to treat customer data with utmost privacy and respect. Despite internal or investor quiet forces suggesting advertising is an important revenue source, they insisted on seeking alternative paths.
• Publicly Opposing Congressional Efforts to Ban All AI Regulation: In mid-2025, the tech community sentiment was “full steam ahead,” worried about risks, slowing down was being politicized as something bad. Bills were considering prohibiting any regulation on AI by states and establishing no federal regulations. They decided to speak out against it, even though many warned it would damage political relationships and other companies would hate them. Dario Amodei published an op-ed in The New York Times saying it was a bad idea. The bill was ultimately defeated in the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1.
• Public Support for California's SB 1047 Bill: This bill is the first attempt to create a regulatory framework around the various risks listed by Anthropic since its founding. The entire tech industry opposed the bill, believing it was imperfect, but publicly stated, “We know if we wrote it, there would be changes or differences, but overall we think these regulations exist, and tech companies have a responsibility to ensure AI doesn’t harm people.” This act resulted in an outpouring of angry emails from former colleagues, investors, and personnel from other companies.

These decisions have shaped Anthropic’s culture of daring to uphold principles under pressure.

The Speed of Trust: Co-creating the Future of AI with Public Engagement

Oprah pointed out the public's sense of powerlessness in the advancement of AI, feeling like “passengers on a train.” Dario Amodei acknowledged this is the core issue. “I think no company, including ours, has fully succeeded in this: ‘How do we make everyone part of this process?’ Something is happening to humanity with this technology, bigger than anything that, you know, maybe has happened in hundreds of years.” Therefore, they need to find some way to make everyone an active participant in what’s happening. Of course, using technology is a form of participation to some extent, but “some elements are missing.” They have tried, for example, Claude has a “constitution” and experimented with citizen feedback on Claude’s constitutional design, but that’s just small stuff. “I don’t know what the answer is, but here’s a missing piece I want to mention.”

Oprah quoted Dario Amodei’s previous words: “We can only spread this technology at the speed of trust.” Dario responded, “At the speed of trust, and trust is currently very scarce.” He admitted that this technology is viewed negatively by most people; Anthropic may be more positive than other companies but is uncertain. He believes the benefits are indeed present and forthcoming but the industry has not been guiding people properly or walk people through how technology can be beneficial and how they can engage with these benefits. “I think that hasn’t happened.”

Daniela Amodei mentioned that one of Anthropic's cultural values is to “hold light and shade.” They truly believe there is a world where AI will cure diseases, help people become better versions of themselves, and allow more time for humans to spend with family, community, and each other. But there is also a possibility of creating some rather dystopian and dark versions of the world.

Regarding AI's impact on employment, Dario Amodei admitted that if technology barrel forth as fast as possible, the claim that entry-level jobs will be wiped out is totally going to happen. But if the implementation of technology is paired with contemplating ways to help people adapt, and the role the government should play, there is a path to a better world, with people’s jobs being totally different. But he doesn't want to sugarcoat it: it won’t be easy. Some people get upset when discussing it.

“There’s a distinction between changing the narrative and acknowledging there’s a problem we need to address.” He worries that changing the narrative feels like “bad things won’t happen; we’ll have a great future where everyone has new jobs.” That might happen, but it won't happen on its own. “It's up to us. Us, companies, people, government...”

What does Daniela Amodei believe the public should do? Fearing technology, not using it, and not mastering it will not make many challenges disappear. “Knowledge is power.” She believes people don’t need to be tech experts to have some concept of how to use AI tools. This gives people the opinion and autonomy to say, “I like what this technology can do, I don’t like what it can do.” People have a voice to express to companies and to representatives of the government.

She used Anthropic's prohibition on users under 18 as an example, noting that other companies might have different policies. She has read Jonathan Haidt's "The Coddling of the American Mind," and believes research suggests a lot of caution is needed regarding developing brains. “It’s not that using AI to learn can’t have tremendous benefits, but there needs to be adults in the room; there needs to be a human in the loop.” People deserve autonomy; they shouldn’t feel that AI is happening to them; they should feel, “Hey, we have a say in the types of bills that Congress or state lawmakers help protect people from the negative externalities that AI may cause.”

At the same time, grasping the light side, she envisions a world where jobs look different, but there will actually be more human-to-human interaction opportunities. The last generation of technologies (social media) truly disintermediated us from one another, while AI, even though you converse with it, does not substitute for your interactions with people; it can enable your interactions with people.

She illustrated with the medical profession: today, people want the smartest, best doctors as diagnostic experts. AI will become proficient at this. In the future, when AI diagnostics are as good as doctors, people will still need doctors, but they will need them to do different things: AI cannot physically examine you, cannot say, “Hey, you seem down today, how’s chemotherapy going?” can’t lay its hands on you. There’s compelling evidence suggesting that clinical outcomes are better when patients have a good personal relationship with their doctors. “That is a world of good job changes.” If there’s a tool that can collaboratively diagnose alongside doctors, freeing them from running all medical tests to spend time relating as human beings, that would be a better world.

She emphasized, the positions themselves might not disappear or change entirely, but the qualities we seek in people for specific positions will change. She is also concerned about demographic differences in who feels comfortable using AI: women use AI at a fraction of the time compared to men. AI is an opportunity to level the playing field, but it requires engagement from people.

“Don’t be afraid of technology. The more you understand it and grasp it, the more effective you will be in using your voice.” Dario Amodei added, AI is here, just like the internet; everyone will eventually have to use it in some form.

Mythos Model: Prioritizing Empowerment for Defenders in Dangerous Times

Oprah asked about the continuously self-improving AI and the new model Mythos. Dario Amodei explained that Mythos is the latest iteration of Anthropic’s smarter model released every few months, and due to discoveries from a few months ago, this is a particularly large jump.

When testing Mythos, they found it much better than human software engineers at looking for ways code could be exploited and broken into. For cyberattacks like ransomware, Mythos excels at both conducting cyberattacks and defending against cyberattacks.

“We said, ‘Wow, this thing seems like a weapon. We shouldn’t immediately let everyone have it.’” They decided on the approach of: first providing the model to core companies of internet infrastructure (top banks, Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. software providers), allowing them to fix everything before it becomes widely available. They’ve provided the model to about 40 companies, which are busily finding bugs. A company recently reported finding and fixing more bugs with Mythos in a week than in the past year.

“Hopefully the defenders can fix everything, making everything more seamless and harder to breach. Hopefully, the ransomware era ends... the era of spy intrusion into phones ends.” Their hope is that by the end of this year, many problems will be fixed, making the world safer than before. “But in the meantime, there’s a dangerous period when you have these incredible capabilities, and you don’t necessarily want to just let loose on the world. We’re trying to manage it by first giving to defenders and then to attackers.”

Oprah asked if this kept him up at night. Dario Amodei honestly replied: “I can’t legally say I sleep soundly. I wish I could give a different answer, but I don’t always sleep that well.” He is most concerned that despite good intentions, it’s incredibly complex; will it screw up? “Yes, we will screw something up at some point. But will we get the big stuff right?”

Remaining Humble: Mission Above Self, Expanding the Circle of Participation

Oprah asked how to maintain ego check amid massive wealth and competition. Dario Amodei believes it always comes back to the mission: why did they leave OpenAI to found Anthropic? To ensure AI evolves positively for everyone. This is the reason they became a public benefit corporation, made the 80% commitment, and made all the tough decisions.

He shared an internal example: during an all-hands meeting, he made some comments that were not quite right, and an employee wrote in his personal Slack channel, “That was pretty bad, it made everyone feel uncomfortable, you shouldn’t say that.” His initial reaction was to feel attacked, but two minutes later, he felt glad that people were willing to speak up and thanked them in return. Many people then noticed, “I didn’t know you could directly contradict the CEO of a 3000-person company.”

Daniela Amodei added that personal life is also very important: she has essentially kept the same friends since high school and college, who effortlessly are honest with her, disagreeing with Anthropic’s public decisions. “For me, the past five years have changed a lot, but personally, it feels like outside of work it hasn’t changed that much, and that’s an important grounding characteristic.” She noted that sometimes heads of big companies become obsessed just with their work and don’t remain well-rounded individuals. At Anthropic’s inception, among seven or eight people, only one had a child; now there are 11 children. “We all chose to become parents; we all want to lead fulfilling and real lives outside of work. This brings a sense of groundedness, humility, and low ego; again, no one is bigger than the mission.”

Regarding hope, Dario Amodei admitted they are never quite sure, but they believe in trying. Decision-making is complex; for instance, should Mythos be given to more people faster or fewer people slower? Who to trust? So they worry daily; this worry might be what gives them the most hope—“we’re so paranoid.” But there is no guarantee; they will make mistakes and continue to do so.

Is there anyone in Silicon Valley who also incorporates “doing right” as part of their mission? Daniela Amodei finds it hard to point to specific companies, but sometimes at events or speaking with other companies, someone might say, “Thank you for the way you're doing things.” There’s a sense of “thank you for trying to do the right thing.” Their sibling relationship also holds them accountable to each other; the entire co-founder team remains at Anthropic, and they also employ an amazing set of people who have come for the mission. There's a form of group accountability, along with an internal culture that allows anyone to disagree, with many forums encouraging that; managers can be anonymous too. “All these qualities will help us if we start to stray from the path; at least we will know.”

Finally, what do they want the public to know? Dario Amodei emphasized: “Something really big is happening here. This is not the latest technology, nor cryptocurrency, or mobile technology, or the latest gadget or buzzword. Something really big is happening to humanity here.” Technology is constructed by a few, but they need to make it work for everyone and ensure that everyone makes the right decisions in response to changes in daily lives, jobs, government, and civil liberties. If done right, all of this can change in a positive way, making it better than what we leave behind, potentially creating a perfect world that cures many diseases and leads to more joyful and meaningful lives. But if wrong, it’s easy to imagine things unfolding completely differently. “It is up to all of us. Some people are in more central positions, but I think we need to change that too.”

Daniela Amodei echoed the concept of “light and shade”: the potential benefits of AI are vast, and the risks are real. They do not attempt to hype up positives or negatives; both are true. It’s very complex, but one must hold two things at once. Technology companies cannot do this alone, nor should they. This requires a broader partnership than currently engaged in artificial intelligence. The first step is: don’t be afraid of it. Understand it, engage with it, question it, critique it. “Just as we tell employees: we only have a chance to do it right if we expand the circle of people in the conversation.”

Regarding the meaning of a “well-lived life,” Daniela Amodei believes it involves having agency and autonomy, being in the driver’s seat, and serving to become the best version of yourself. This encompasses oneself, family, children, the broader community, and the world. The ability to be self-reflective, learn from mistakes, overcome struggles, and think from the other end, “I better understand myself, I like myself, I want to help others.” AI could impair these markers, but it could also enable them, allowing more people to have meaning and value, self-introspect, become their best selves, being well for each other. She hopes that’s the world they will build towards.

Dario Amodei expressed the same sentiment with different language: always operate with a sense of dignity and principle. Being able to look back without shame at what was done, of course making mistakes, but putting in every effort to try to do right. They owe duties to individuals (co-founders, everyone in life) and to users of technology, citizens of nations, and the world. Ensuring it’s ultimately directed at some purpose, some consistent view of what we’re trying to accomplish, the vision we’re trying to make happen. It might not happen, they might mess up, and commit terrible mistakes, but simply having the vision be clear and trying to pursue it with integrity is what's crucial. Wanting the outcome is important, but doing that is all we can control, and ultimately, more important than the outcome.

Oprah concluded that they are doing what they envisioned as children. The siblings laughed and acknowledged, “It’s strange, but we are.”

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。