5 ms·

Public benefit corporations in the AI space have become a farce at this point. They're just regular corporations wearing a different hat, driven by the same mon

Public benefit corporations in the AI space have become a farce at this point. They're just regular corporations wearing a different hat, driven by the same money dynamics as any other corp. They have no ability to balance their stated "mission" with their drive for profit. When being "evil" is profitable and not-evil is not, guess which road they'll take...

coldtea 8mo ago
In general public benefit corporations and non-profits should have a very modest salary cap for everybody involved and specific public-benefit legally binding mission statements. Anybody involved should also be prohibited from starting a private company using their IP and catering to the same domain for 5-10 years after they leave. Non-profits where the CEO makes millions or billions are a joke. And if e.g. your mission is to build an open browser, being paid by a for-profit to change its behavior (e.g. make theirs the default search engine) should be prohibited too.
- drzaiusx11 8mo ago
  If we're speaking in generalities of corporations in this space, it's all a joke now, at least from my vantage point. I just don't find it very funny.
- jkestner 8mo ago
  It’s not the CEO’s fault - they had to take all that money to keep their org a non-profit. B corps are like recycling programs, a nice logo.
  - torginus 8mo ago
    Don't they get tax breaks and more lax operating requirements? I don't think this is just an image thing.
    - mcherm 8mo ago
      No, under US law charities and non-profits are typically eligible for some kinds of tax benefits but public benefit corporations are not.
  - shafyy 8mo ago
    Are you saying that recycling is a scam?
    - 8organicbits 8mo ago
      Many recycling programs don't actually recycle. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/critics-call-out-plastics-industry-over-fraud-of-plastic-recycling/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/critics-call-out-plastics-indus...
    - coldtea 8mo ago
      Aside from a few select product categories, recycling IS a scam. E.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-... Recycling mostly means "sent to landfills in the third world": https://earth.org/waste-colonialism-a-brief-history-of-dumping-rich-countries-trash-in-the-global-south/ https://earth.org/waste-colonialism-a-brief-history-of-dumpi... https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/03/rich-countries-nations-waste-plastic-exports-chemical-contamination/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/03/rich-countri... https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/opinion/trash-recycling-global-waste-trade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/opinion/trash-recycling-g...
      - shafyy 8mo ago
        It really depends on the type of material and country. Many monoplastics and almost all cardboard can be recycled and is (e.g. in Germany and other European countries). > Recycling mostly means "sent to landfills in the third world" This is less true now that China banned plastic waste imports. I agree though that the average person might overestimate how much of their waste can be recycled. However, many materials are recycled and then re-used, so it's not like the whole concept is a scam.
    - jkestner 8mo ago
      Mostly, yeah. "Yet the industry spent millions telling people to recycle, because, as one former top industry insider told NPR, selling recycling sold plastic, even if it wasn't true." https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
- abigail95 8mo ago
  What's the salary cap for hiring a team to build a frontier model? These kind of rules will make PBCs weaker not stronger.
  - coldtea 8mo ago
    >for hiring a team to build a frontier model? These kind of rules will make PBCs weaker not stronger Weaker is fine if those working there are actually true to the mission for the mission, are not for the profit. Same with FOSS really, e.g. I'd rather have a weaker Linux that's an actual comminity project run by volunteers, than a stronger Linux that's just corporate agendas, corporate hires with an open license on top.
- ACCount37 8mo ago
  "A very modest salary cap" works if your mission is planting trees. Not so much if what you're building is frontier AI systems.
  - the_bear 8mo ago
    I think that's the point though. The AI companies can't compete without hiring very talented employees and raising lots of money from investors. Neither the employees nor investors would participate if there weren't the potential for making mountains of money. So these AI companies fundamentally can't be non-profits or true B-corps (I realize that's a vague term, but the it certainly means not doing whatever it takes to make as much money as possible), and they shouldn't pretend they are.
    - ACCount37 8mo ago
      To me, it feels like saying "you can't be a public benefit corporation unless all the labor involved in delivering that public benefit is cheap". Which just doesn't seem like it should be true? Sure, some "public benefit" missions could scale sideways and employ a lot of cheap labor, not suffering from a salary cap at all. But other missions would require rare high end high performance high salary specialists who are in demand - and thus expensive. You can't rely on being able to source enough altruists that will put up with being paid half their market worth for the sake of the mission.
      - coldtea 8mo ago
        >But other missions would require rare high end high performance high salary specialists who are in demand - and thus expensive. You can't rely on being able to source enough altruists that will put up with being paid half their market worth for the sake of the mission.' That's exactly what a non-profit should be able to rely on. And not just "half their market worth", but even many times less. Else we can just say "we can't really have non-profits, because everybody is a greedy pig who doesn't care about public benefit enough to make a sacrifice of profits - but still a perfectly livable salary" - and be done with it.
- OkayPhysicist 8mo ago
  You're overthinking this. Just give the beneficiaries of the corporation (which in the context of a "public" benefit corporation is the public) the grounds to sue if the company reneges on their mission, the same way shareholders can sue if a company fails to act in their interest.
lenerdenator 8mo ago
Well, now I'm wondering, if the company was chartered with the public benefit in mind, could you not sue if they don't follow through with working in the public interest? If regular corporations are sued for not acting in the interests of shareholders, that would suggest that one could file a suit for this sort of corporate behavior. I'm not even a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV) and public benefit corporations seem to be fairly new, so maybe this doesn't have any precedent in case law, but if you couldn't sue them for that sort of thing, then there's effectively no difference between public benefit corporations and regular corporations.
- Hamuko 8mo ago
  I think public benefit corporations (like Anthropic) are quite poorly defined so I'm not sure how successful a lawsuit is.
- hluska 8mo ago
  I really don’t see it. PBCs are dual purpose entities - under charter, they have a dual purpose of making profit while adding some benefit to society. Profit is easy to define; benefit to society is a lot more difficult to define. That difficulty is reflected at the penalty stage where few jurisdictions have any sort of examination of PBC status. This is what we were all going on about 15 years ago when Maryland was the first state to make PBCs legal. We got called negative at the time.
  - JohnnyLarue 8mo ago
    [dead]
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
heavyset_go 8mo ago
PBCs are peak End of History liberal philanthropy that speak to the kind of person whose solution to any problem is "throw a startup at it"
- nozzlegear 8mo ago
  Fukuyama wasn't wrong, he was just early
  - lyu07282 8mo ago
    As in a true believer in our present day dystopia? I think chances are we'd evolve a few more neo variants of fascism at least a few times in-between some neo variants of liberal history-ending ones (I think abundance is next?) before the bombs drop and give us the rest.
Forgeties79 8mo ago
I feel like we went through this exact situation in the 2010s of social media companies. I don’t get why people defend these companies or ever believe they have any sense of altruism
- kelvinjps10 8mo ago
  Also, it seems to be the era where the government takes backdoor access to these services and data, as the did with social media
Schlagbohrer 8mo ago
Pete Hegseth also threatened to take, by dictat, everything Anthropic has. He can do that with the Defense Industrial Act or whatever its called if he designates them as critical to national defense.
- bn_layc 8mo ago
  He seems to be the driving force behind all this. Mediocrities are attracted to AI like moths. The press always say "the Pentagon negotiates". Does any publication have an evidence that it is "the Pentagon" and not Hegseth? In general, I see a lot of common sense from the real Pentagon as opposed to the Secretary of War. I hope Westpoint will check for AI psychosis in their entrance interviews and completely forbid AI usage. These people need to be grounded.
  - Cipater 8mo ago
    Military academy boards have been purged and stacked with loyalists.
  - iranintoavan 8mo ago
    Unfortunately, I have bad news for you. https://www.westpoint.edu/about/modernization-plan/artificial-intelligence-military-leadership https://www.westpoint.edu/about/modernization-plan/artificia...
- nozzlegear 8mo ago
  It would've been better PR for Anthropic to let Hegseth do that instead of fold at the slightest hint of pressure and lost contract money. I've canceled my Claude subscription over this (and made sure to let them know in the feedback).
- lprhrp 8mo ago
  Hmm, that could be the best "IPO" they'll ever get. Better check if Trump Jr.'s 1789 capital has shares like they did in groq (note the "q").
vharish 8mo ago
Like Google's old motto, 'Do no evil!' :D
- thih9 8mo ago
  > 'Do no evil!' “Don’t be evil”. But yes, this behavior made me think about Google too. Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
neya 8mo ago
I was a Pro subscriber until last week. When I was chatting with Claude, it kept asking a lot of personal questions - that seemed only very very vaguely relevant to the topic. And then it struck me - all these AI companies are doing are just building detailed user models for being either targeted for advertising or to be sold off to the highest bidder. It hasn't happened yet with Anthropic, but when the bubble money runs out, there's not gonna be a lot of options and all we'll see is a blog post "oops! sorry we did what we promised you we wouldn't". Oldest trick in the tech playbook.
- dibujaron 8mo ago
  A less cynical explanation: It's heavily trained to ask follow-up questions at the end of a response, to drive more conversation and more engagement. That's useful both for making sure you want to renew your subscription, and also probably for generating more training data for future models. That's sufficient explanation for the behavior we're seeing.
  - g947o 8mo ago
    I could be wrong, but I remember that Claude models didn't really ask follow-up questions. But since GPT models are doing that, and somehow people like that (why?), Anthropic started doing it as well.
  - neya 8mo ago
    Because, Anthropic can do no wrong, correct?
    - drzaiusx11 8mo ago
      With this new announcement, Anthropic is saying they can _specifically_ "do wrong" since it's in their best interests...
      - neya 8mo ago
        Yep I agree, I forgot to add /s to my comment
logicallee 8mo ago
>Public benefit corporations in the AI space have become a farce at this point. They're just regular corporations wearing a different hat, driven by the same money dynamics as any other corp. Could you describe the model that you think might work well?
- nozzlegear 8mo ago
  It sounds like OP thinks AI companies should just stop pretending that they care about the public benefit, and be corporations from the start. Skip the hand wringing and the will they/wont they betray their ethics phases entirely since everyone knows they're going to choose profit over public benefit every time. That model already exists and has worked well for decades. It's called being a regular ass corporation.
  - logicallee 8mo ago
    I understand, but being a regular corporation is not the only possible model. Can you think of something better?
    - williamdclt 8mo ago
      > being a regular corporation is not the only possible model the point is that it _is_ the only possible model in our marvellous Friedmanian economic structure of shareholder primacy. When the only incentive is profit, if your company isn't maximising profit then it will lose to other companies who are. You can hope that the self-imposed ethics guardrails _are_ maximising profit because it the invisible hand of the market cares about that, but 1. it never really does (at scale) and 2. big influences (such as the DoD here) can sway that easily. So we're stuck with negative externalities because all that's incentivised is profit.
      - logicallee 8mo ago
        >the point is that it _is_ the only possible model in our marvellous Friedmanian economic structure of shareholder primacy. When the only incentive is profit, if your company isn't maximising profit then it will lose to other companies who are. You can hope that the self-imposed ethics guardrails _are_ maximising profit because it the invisible hand of the market cares about that, but 1. it never really does (at scale) and 2. big influences (such as the DoD here) can sway that easily. So we're stuck with negative externalities because all that's incentivised is profit. I'm curious about your thinking on this subject, if you email me at the email on my profile I have some specific questions about your views on this matter. We've already created a digital sovereign nation called State of Utopia which will be available at stateofutopia.com or stofut.com for short, our manifesto is here: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d6b35b81-0eeb-4e41-9628-5d53fed072f0 https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d6b35b81-0eeb-4e41-9628-5... We have real services you can use immediately, such as this p2p phone/chat/video service without time limits (Zoom has a 1 hour meeting limit for free accounts) and no tracking: https://stateofutopia.com/instacall.html https://stateofutopia.com/instacall.html Just yesterday we published a fitness tool proof of concept: https://stateofutopia.com/experiments/bodyfat/ https://stateofutopia.com/experiments/bodyfat/ We do believe that it is important to have market dynamics, and our model is for this state to own state-owned companies as well. Getting this model right is important to us and we would like to engage with you on this subject. We hope you'll email us to discuss your thoughts further.
bparsons 8mo ago
That's not what happened here. They literally got forced into it by the Pentagon. https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-hegseth-dario https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-h...
latexr 8mo ago
> Public benefit corporations in the AI space have become a farce at this point. “At this point”? It was always the case, it’s just harder to hide it the more time passes. Anyone can claim anything they want about themselves, it’s only after you’ve had a chance to see them in the situations which test their words that you can confirm if they are what they said.
- drzaiusx11 8mo ago
  I presume in the beginning, many at OpenAI actually believed in the mission. Their good will simply was corrupted by the mountains of money on the table.

coldtea 8mo ago

In general public benefit corporations and non-profits should have a very modest salary cap for everybody involved and specific public-benefit legally binding mission statements. Anybody involved should also be prohibited from starting a private company using their IP and catering to the same domain for 5-10 years after they leave. Non-profits where the CEO makes millions or billions are a joke. And if e.g. your mission is to build an open browser, being paid by a for-profit to change its behavior (e.g. make theirs the default search engine) should be prohibited too.

drzaiusx11 8mo ago
If we're speaking in generalities of corporations in this space, it's all a joke now, at least from my vantage point. I just don't find it very funny.
jkestner 8mo ago
It’s not the CEO’s fault - they had to take all that money to keep their org a non-profit. B corps are like recycling programs, a nice logo.
- torginus 8mo ago
  Don't they get tax breaks and more lax operating requirements? I don't think this is just an image thing.
  - mcherm 8mo ago
    No, under US law charities and non-profits are typically eligible for some kinds of tax benefits but public benefit corporations are not.
- shafyy 8mo ago
  Are you saying that recycling is a scam?
  - 8organicbits 8mo ago
    Many recycling programs don't actually recycle. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/critics-call-out-plastics-industry-over-fraud-of-plastic-recycling/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/critics-call-out-plastics-indus...
  - coldtea 8mo ago
    Aside from a few select product categories, recycling IS a scam. E.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-... Recycling mostly means "sent to landfills in the third world": https://earth.org/waste-colonialism-a-brief-history-of-dumping-rich-countries-trash-in-the-global-south/ https://earth.org/waste-colonialism-a-brief-history-of-dumpi... https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/03/rich-countries-nations-waste-plastic-exports-chemical-contamination/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/03/rich-countri... https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/opinion/trash-recycling-global-waste-trade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/opinion/trash-recycling-g...
    - shafyy 8mo ago
      It really depends on the type of material and country. Many monoplastics and almost all cardboard can be recycled and is (e.g. in Germany and other European countries). > Recycling mostly means "sent to landfills in the third world" This is less true now that China banned plastic waste imports. I agree though that the average person might overestimate how much of their waste can be recycled. However, many materials are recycled and then re-used, so it's not like the whole concept is a scam.
  - jkestner 8mo ago
    Mostly, yeah. "Yet the industry spent millions telling people to recycle, because, as one former top industry insider told NPR, selling recycling sold plastic, even if it wasn't true." https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
abigail95 8mo ago
What's the salary cap for hiring a team to build a frontier model? These kind of rules will make PBCs weaker not stronger.
- coldtea 8mo ago
  >for hiring a team to build a frontier model? These kind of rules will make PBCs weaker not stronger Weaker is fine if those working there are actually true to the mission for the mission, are not for the profit. Same with FOSS really, e.g. I'd rather have a weaker Linux that's an actual comminity project run by volunteers, than a stronger Linux that's just corporate agendas, corporate hires with an open license on top.
ACCount37 8mo ago
"A very modest salary cap" works if your mission is planting trees. Not so much if what you're building is frontier AI systems.
- the_bear 8mo ago
  I think that's the point though. The AI companies can't compete without hiring very talented employees and raising lots of money from investors. Neither the employees nor investors would participate if there weren't the potential for making mountains of money. So these AI companies fundamentally can't be non-profits or true B-corps (I realize that's a vague term, but the it certainly means not doing whatever it takes to make as much money as possible), and they shouldn't pretend they are.
  - ACCount37 8mo ago
    To me, it feels like saying "you can't be a public benefit corporation unless all the labor involved in delivering that public benefit is cheap". Which just doesn't seem like it should be true? Sure, some "public benefit" missions could scale sideways and employ a lot of cheap labor, not suffering from a salary cap at all. But other missions would require rare high end high performance high salary specialists who are in demand - and thus expensive. You can't rely on being able to source enough altruists that will put up with being paid half their market worth for the sake of the mission.
    - coldtea 8mo ago
      >But other missions would require rare high end high performance high salary specialists who are in demand - and thus expensive. You can't rely on being able to source enough altruists that will put up with being paid half their market worth for the sake of the mission.' That's exactly what a non-profit should be able to rely on. And not just "half their market worth", but even many times less. Else we can just say "we can't really have non-profits, because everybody is a greedy pig who doesn't care about public benefit enough to make a sacrifice of profits - but still a perfectly livable salary" - and be done with it.
OkayPhysicist 8mo ago
You're overthinking this. Just give the beneficiaries of the corporation (which in the context of a "public" benefit corporation is the public) the grounds to sue if the company reneges on their mission, the same way shareholders can sue if a company fails to act in their interest.

lenerdenator 8mo ago

Well, now I'm wondering, if the company was chartered with the public benefit in mind, could you not sue if they don't follow through with working in the public interest? If regular corporations are sued for not acting in the interests of shareholders, that would suggest that one could file a suit for this sort of corporate behavior. I'm not even a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV) and public benefit corporations seem to be fairly new, so maybe this doesn't have any precedent in case law, but if you couldn't sue them for that sort of thing, then there's effectively no difference between public benefit corporations and regular corporations.

Hamuko 8mo ago
I think public benefit corporations (like Anthropic) are quite poorly defined so I'm not sure how successful a lawsuit is.
hluska 8mo ago
I really don’t see it. PBCs are dual purpose entities - under charter, they have a dual purpose of making profit while adding some benefit to society. Profit is easy to define; benefit to society is a lot more difficult to define. That difficulty is reflected at the penalty stage where few jurisdictions have any sort of examination of PBC status. This is what we were all going on about 15 years ago when Maryland was the first state to make PBCs legal. We got called negative at the time.
- JohnnyLarue 8mo ago
  [dead]

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

heavyset_go 8mo ago

PBCs are peak End of History liberal philanthropy that speak to the kind of person whose solution to any problem is "throw a startup at it"

nozzlegear 8mo ago
Fukuyama wasn't wrong, he was just early
- lyu07282 8mo ago
  As in a true believer in our present day dystopia? I think chances are we'd evolve a few more neo variants of fascism at least a few times in-between some neo variants of liberal history-ending ones (I think abundance is next?) before the bombs drop and give us the rest.

Forgeties79 8mo ago

I feel like we went through this exact situation in the 2010s of social media companies. I don’t get why people defend these companies or ever believe they have any sense of altruism

kelvinjps10 8mo ago
Also, it seems to be the era where the government takes backdoor access to these services and data, as the did with social media

Schlagbohrer 8mo ago

Pete Hegseth also threatened to take, by dictat, everything Anthropic has. He can do that with the Defense Industrial Act or whatever its called if he designates them as critical to national defense.

bn_layc 8mo ago
He seems to be the driving force behind all this. Mediocrities are attracted to AI like moths. The press always say "the Pentagon negotiates". Does any publication have an evidence that it is "the Pentagon" and not Hegseth? In general, I see a lot of common sense from the real Pentagon as opposed to the Secretary of War. I hope Westpoint will check for AI psychosis in their entrance interviews and completely forbid AI usage. These people need to be grounded.
- Cipater 8mo ago
  Military academy boards have been purged and stacked with loyalists.
- iranintoavan 8mo ago
  Unfortunately, I have bad news for you. https://www.westpoint.edu/about/modernization-plan/artificial-intelligence-military-leadership https://www.westpoint.edu/about/modernization-plan/artificia...
nozzlegear 8mo ago
It would've been better PR for Anthropic to let Hegseth do that instead of fold at the slightest hint of pressure and lost contract money. I've canceled my Claude subscription over this (and made sure to let them know in the feedback).
lprhrp 8mo ago
Hmm, that could be the best "IPO" they'll ever get. Better check if Trump Jr.'s 1789 capital has shares like they did in groq (note the "q").

vharish 8mo ago

Like Google's old motto, 'Do no evil!' :D

thih9 8mo ago
> 'Do no evil!' “Don’t be evil”. But yes, this behavior made me think about Google too. Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

neya 8mo ago

I was a Pro subscriber until last week. When I was chatting with Claude, it kept asking a lot of personal questions - that seemed only very very vaguely relevant to the topic. And then it struck me - all these AI companies are doing are just building detailed user models for being either targeted for advertising or to be sold off to the highest bidder. It hasn't happened yet with Anthropic, but when the bubble money runs out, there's not gonna be a lot of options and all we'll see is a blog post "oops! sorry we did what we promised you we wouldn't". Oldest trick in the tech playbook.

dibujaron 8mo ago
A less cynical explanation: It's heavily trained to ask follow-up questions at the end of a response, to drive more conversation and more engagement. That's useful both for making sure you want to renew your subscription, and also probably for generating more training data for future models. That's sufficient explanation for the behavior we're seeing.
- g947o 8mo ago
  I could be wrong, but I remember that Claude models didn't really ask follow-up questions. But since GPT models are doing that, and somehow people like that (why?), Anthropic started doing it as well.
- neya 8mo ago
  Because, Anthropic can do no wrong, correct?
  - drzaiusx11 8mo ago
    With this new announcement, Anthropic is saying they can _specifically_ "do wrong" since it's in their best interests...
    - neya 8mo ago
      Yep I agree, I forgot to add /s to my comment

logicallee 8mo ago

>Public benefit corporations in the AI space have become a farce at this point. They're just regular corporations wearing a different hat, driven by the same money dynamics as any other corp. Could you describe the model that you think might work well?

nozzlegear 8mo ago
It sounds like OP thinks AI companies should just stop pretending that they care about the public benefit, and be corporations from the start. Skip the hand wringing and the will they/wont they betray their ethics phases entirely since everyone knows they're going to choose profit over public benefit every time. That model already exists and has worked well for decades. It's called being a regular ass corporation.
- logicallee 8mo ago
  I understand, but being a regular corporation is not the only possible model. Can you think of something better?
  - williamdclt 8mo ago
    > being a regular corporation is not the only possible model the point is that it _is_ the only possible model in our marvellous Friedmanian economic structure of shareholder primacy. When the only incentive is profit, if your company isn't maximising profit then it will lose to other companies who are. You can hope that the self-imposed ethics guardrails _are_ maximising profit because it the invisible hand of the market cares about that, but 1. it never really does (at scale) and 2. big influences (such as the DoD here) can sway that easily. So we're stuck with negative externalities because all that's incentivised is profit.
    - logicallee 8mo ago
      >the point is that it _is_ the only possible model in our marvellous Friedmanian economic structure of shareholder primacy. When the only incentive is profit, if your company isn't maximising profit then it will lose to other companies who are. You can hope that the self-imposed ethics guardrails _are_ maximising profit because it the invisible hand of the market cares about that, but 1. it never really does (at scale) and 2. big influences (such as the DoD here) can sway that easily. So we're stuck with negative externalities because all that's incentivised is profit. I'm curious about your thinking on this subject, if you email me at the email on my profile I have some specific questions about your views on this matter. We've already created a digital sovereign nation called State of Utopia which will be available at stateofutopia.com or stofut.com for short, our manifesto is here: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d6b35b81-0eeb-4e41-9628-5d53fed072f0 https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d6b35b81-0eeb-4e41-9628-5... We have real services you can use immediately, such as this p2p phone/chat/video service without time limits (Zoom has a 1 hour meeting limit for free accounts) and no tracking: https://stateofutopia.com/instacall.html https://stateofutopia.com/instacall.html Just yesterday we published a fitness tool proof of concept: https://stateofutopia.com/experiments/bodyfat/ https://stateofutopia.com/experiments/bodyfat/ We do believe that it is important to have market dynamics, and our model is for this state to own state-owned companies as well. Getting this model right is important to us and we would like to engage with you on this subject. We hope you'll email us to discuss your thoughts further.

bparsons 8mo ago

That's not what happened here. They literally got forced into it by the Pentagon. https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-hegseth-dario https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-h...

latexr 8mo ago

> Public benefit corporations in the AI space have become a farce at this point. “At this point”? It was always the case, it’s just harder to hide it the more time passes. Anyone can claim anything they want about themselves, it’s only after you’ve had a chance to see them in the situations which test their words that you can confirm if they are what they said.

drzaiusx11 8mo ago
I presume in the beginning, many at OpenAI actually believed in the mission. Their good will simply was corrupted by the mountains of money on the table.