3 ms·

There may have been a disagreement, but now they're focused on profit, as everybody else. From the same article: “Anthropic has been heavily focused on researc

There may have been a disagreement, but now they're focused on profit, as everybody else. From the same article: “Anthropic has been heavily focused on research for the first year and a half of its existence, but we have been convinced of the necessity of commercialization, which we fully committed to in September [2022],” the pitch deck reads. “We’ve developed a strategy for go-to-market and initial product specialization that fits with our core expertise, brand and where we see adoption occurring over the next 12 months.”

dpflan 4y ago
This is hilarious to me, in that the disgruntled departure just did a 180… how long until the next disgruntled spin-out for higher reasons chases the dollar too…
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > This is hilarious to me, in that the disgruntled departure just did a 180… how long until the next disgruntled spin-out for higher reasons chases the dollar too… The cynic in me wants to ask "What makes you think his departure was because of an anti-commercialisation position?" My take (probably just as wrong as everybody's else take) is that he saw the huge commercialisation potential and realised that he could make even more money by having a larger stake, which he got when he started his own venture.
  - wittenbunk 4y ago
    If you look read the parent comment in this thread you'd get an answer...
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > If you look read the parent comment in this thread you'd get an answer... I looked and I didn't get an answer. hence my comment. To clarify, we know what he said his reason was, we don't know if that really was his reason. When people leave they very rarely voice the actual reason for leaving; the reason they give is designed to make them look as good as possible for any future employer or venture.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    That does seem more likely. Let's hope his VP of research does the same thing to him (-:
  - dpflan 4y ago
    It’s pretty clear, the words say he was anti, then the company he helped create apparently has marketing material all about being commercialization. Unless he leaves tomorrow for the same reasons it is quite hard to disbelieve that “cash rules everything around me”.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dtagames 4y ago
  Everybody in the chip business was a spin-off from Fairchild. This is pretty common when a huge, new tech comes along.
- nr2x 4y ago
  Also, to chase those dollars while being on the leash of Google’s massive investment. So they lost the plot on the altruistic mission within months of setting up shop, and now are just a pawn in a bigger game between other companies.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  The same thing happened back in the processor arms race days and before that in the IC days. Ex-Fairchild engineers created a lot of the most durable IC and chip companies out there. Intel's founders were ex-Fairchild.
- adamsmith143 4y ago
  To be fair I think he had the same realization that they had at OpenAI. Sam Altman has gone on the record saying it's basically impossible to raise significant amounts of money as a pure nonprofit and you aren't going to train cutting edge foundation models without a lot of cash. Anthropic is saying they literally need to spend $1B over 18 months to train their next Claude version.
menzoic 4y ago
Its not about making money, its about opening up the tech to the public (including source, weights...etc)
- JohnFen 4y ago
  It sure looks like it's about the money to me.

dpflan 4y ago

This is hilarious to me, in that the disgruntled departure just did a 180… how long until the next disgruntled spin-out for higher reasons chases the dollar too…

lelanthran 4y ago
> This is hilarious to me, in that the disgruntled departure just did a 180… how long until the next disgruntled spin-out for higher reasons chases the dollar too… The cynic in me wants to ask "What makes you think his departure was because of an anti-commercialisation position?" My take (probably just as wrong as everybody's else take) is that he saw the huge commercialisation potential and realised that he could make even more money by having a larger stake, which he got when he started his own venture.
- wittenbunk 4y ago
  If you look read the parent comment in this thread you'd get an answer...
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > If you look read the parent comment in this thread you'd get an answer... I looked and I didn't get an answer. hence my comment. To clarify, we know what he said his reason was, we don't know if that really was his reason. When people leave they very rarely voice the actual reason for leaving; the reason they give is designed to make them look as good as possible for any future employer or venture.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  That does seem more likely. Let's hope his VP of research does the same thing to him (-:
- dpflan 4y ago
  It’s pretty clear, the words say he was anti, then the company he helped create apparently has marketing material all about being commercialization. Unless he leaves tomorrow for the same reasons it is quite hard to disbelieve that “cash rules everything around me”.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dtagames 4y ago
Everybody in the chip business was a spin-off from Fairchild. This is pretty common when a huge, new tech comes along.
nr2x 4y ago
Also, to chase those dollars while being on the leash of Google’s massive investment. So they lost the plot on the altruistic mission within months of setting up shop, and now are just a pawn in a bigger game between other companies.
Karrot_Kream 4y ago
The same thing happened back in the processor arms race days and before that in the IC days. Ex-Fairchild engineers created a lot of the most durable IC and chip companies out there. Intel's founders were ex-Fairchild.
adamsmith143 4y ago
To be fair I think he had the same realization that they had at OpenAI. Sam Altman has gone on the record saying it's basically impossible to raise significant amounts of money as a pure nonprofit and you aren't going to train cutting edge foundation models without a lot of cash. Anthropic is saying they literally need to spend $1B over 18 months to train their next Claude version.

menzoic 4y ago

Its not about making money, its about opening up the tech to the public (including source, weights...etc)

JohnFen 4y ago
It sure looks like it's about the money to me.