4 ms·
That's a perfectly fine belief to have. I might even agree with you. But you're not really advancing a discussion thread about a company's strong ideals by poin
by sowbug 8mo ago
That's a perfectly fine belief to have. I might even agree with you. But you're not really advancing a discussion thread about a company's strong ideals by pointing out some past behavior that you don't like. This is especially true when the behavior you're bringing up is fairly common, if perhaps lamentable, among U.S. corporations. Anthropic can be exceptional in some ways while being ordinary in the rest.
(I have no horse in this race. But I remain interested in hearing about a former employee's experience and impressions about the company's ideals, and hope it doesn't get lost in a side discussion about whether NDAs are a good thing.)
- MichaelZuo 8mo agoYou dont believe it increases the probability that Anthropic may be hiding other unsavory things too? I can see a very charitable person only seeing a small increase, but a literally zero change, and therefore zero relevance, seems absurd.
- sowbug 8mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem
- MichaelZuo 7mo agoAre you confusing me with someone else’s comment? This doesn’t address my question on what you believe.
- sowbug 7mo agoRead the beetle example in that article. It's exactly on point. You believe Anthropic is a rare subspecies of beetle (an "unsavory" company) based on a certain pattern on its back (certain NDA-related behavior). I and several others here have noted that lots of companies have that pattern on their backs. Which means that you are basing your conclusion on weak evidence. If you use Bayes Theorem to calculate the actual probability, you'll find that "[trying] to hide the existence of secret non-disparagement agreements" barely moves the needle at all. Does it move the needle? Sure. But much less than you think.
- MichaelZuo 7mo agoEven if it only moved the needle a tiny amount… that’s still a non-zero amount? And therefore a non-zero amount of relevance?
- sowbug 7mo agoYour original point carries an infinitesimal amount of weight. Yes, you win.
- MichaelZuo 7mo agoWin what? You haven’t even advanced a coherent argument yet… hence the original reply.