3 ms·

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but the practical upshot of this new "Public Benefit Corporation" thing, with or without a trust or non-profit a

by mppm 2y ago

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but the practical upshot of this new "Public Benefit Corporation" thing, with or without a trust or non-profit attached, is that you can tell both the public and your investors to fuck off. The reason why all the big AI startups suddenly want to use it is because they can. Normally no sane investor would actually invest in such a structure, but right now the fear that you might be left out of the race for humanity's "last invention" is so acute that they do it anyway. But if Dario Amodei actually cared about humanity any more than Sam Altman, that would be the surprise of the year to me.

raldi 2y ago
Can you imagine a hypothetical AI company that did care about humanity, and if so, how would it look different from Anthropic?
- caslon 2y ago
  It wouldn't be doing this: https://investors.palantir.com/news-details/2024/Anthropic-and-Palantir-Partner-to-Bring-Claude-AI-Models-to-AWS-for-U.S.-Government-Intelligence-and-Defense-Operations/ https://investors.palantir.com/news-details/2024/Anthropic-a... It wouldn't specifically brag about doing it, while leaving out that they were specifically dealing with Palantir, because they know what they're doing is unethical: https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-access-to-claude-for-government https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-access-to-claude-fo... Being available for use by militaries is incredibly irresponsible, regardless of what scope is specifically claimed, because of the inherent gravity of the situation when a military is wrong. The US military maintains a good deal of infrastructure in the US; putting into their hands an unreliable, incompetent calculator puts lives at risk. It would be structured as a non-profit (there are no teeth to a PBC; the structure is entirely to avoid liability, and if you have no trust in the executive body of an organization, it has zero meaningful signal). It would have a different leadership team. It would have a leader who could steelman his own position competently. Machines of Loving Grace was less redeeming than Lenat's old stump speeches for his position, despite Amodei starting up in an industry significantly more geared for what he had to say, and Lenat having an incredibly flexible sense of morality. Its leader would not have a history working for Chinese companies and jingoistically begin advocating for export controls. It would have different employees than the people I know who are working there, who have a history of picking the most unethical employers they can find, in a fashion not dissimilar to how Illumination Entertainment's "Minions" select employers.
erikerikson 2y ago
You seem to misunderstand benefit corporations. They remain committed to profit and are just as subject to their board and officers as any other corporation. There are sane investors that prefer investing in companies that adopt these corporate structures. Based on data, those investors see public benefit corporations as more profitable and resilient. They are able to attract employees and customers that would otherwise not be interested or might be less interested.

by mppm 2y ago

raldi 2y ago

Can you imagine a hypothetical AI company that did care about humanity, and if so, how would it look different from Anthropic?

caslon 2y ago
It wouldn't be doing this: https://investors.palantir.com/news-details/2024/Anthropic-and-Palantir-Partner-to-Bring-Claude-AI-Models-to-AWS-for-U.S.-Government-Intelligence-and-Defense-Operations/ https://investors.palantir.com/news-details/2024/Anthropic-a... It wouldn't specifically brag about doing it, while leaving out that they were specifically dealing with Palantir, because they know what they're doing is unethical: https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-access-to-claude-for-government https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-access-to-claude-fo... Being available for use by militaries is incredibly irresponsible, regardless of what scope is specifically claimed, because of the inherent gravity of the situation when a military is wrong. The US military maintains a good deal of infrastructure in the US; putting into their hands an unreliable, incompetent calculator puts lives at risk. It would be structured as a non-profit (there are no teeth to a PBC; the structure is entirely to avoid liability, and if you have no trust in the executive body of an organization, it has zero meaningful signal). It would have a different leadership team. It would have a leader who could steelman his own position competently. Machines of Loving Grace was less redeeming than Lenat's old stump speeches for his position, despite Amodei starting up in an industry significantly more geared for what he had to say, and Lenat having an incredibly flexible sense of morality. Its leader would not have a history working for Chinese companies and jingoistically begin advocating for export controls. It would have different employees than the people I know who are working there, who have a history of picking the most unethical employers they can find, in a fashion not dissimilar to how Illumination Entertainment's "Minions" select employers.

erikerikson 2y ago

You seem to misunderstand benefit corporations. They remain committed to profit and are just as subject to their board and officers as any other corporation. There are sane investors that prefer investing in companies that adopt these corporate structures. Based on data, those investors see public benefit corporations as more profitable and resilient. They are able to attract employees and customers that would otherwise not be interested or might be less interested.