6 ms·

Exactly. At this level you don't just put out a statement of your personal opinion. This is run through PR and coordinated with the investors. Otherwise the CEO

by dust42 8mo ago

Exactly. At this level you don't just put out a statement of your personal opinion. This is run through PR and coordinated with the investors. Otherwise the CEO finds himself on the street by tomorrow. Whatever their motives are, it is aligned with VC, because if it is not then the next day there is another CEO. As the parent stated, this is not cynicism. I see this just rather factual, it is simply the laws of money.

qdotme 8mo ago
FWIW, I don’t actually know if board of Anthropic has actual power to replace its CEO or if Dario has retained some form of personal super-control shares Zuckerberg style. At some level of growth, the dynamics between competent founders and shareholders flip. Even if the board could afford to replace a CEO, it might not be worth it.
- dust42 8mo ago
  I'd counter that at this level of capital, if the CEO doesn't well align with the capital, then super-control shares will be overpowered by super-lawyers and if there is need some super-donations. OpenAI was a public interest company...
  - blackqueeriroh 8mo ago
    This is fundamentally incorrect.
  - qdotme 8mo ago
    Not at all. Especially at that level of capital. It’s the equity equivalent of „if you owe a bank a million dollars, you’re in trouble. If you owe a bank a billion dollars, the bank is in trouble”. Capital is extremely fungible. Typically extremely overleveraged. Lawyers are on the other hand extremely overprotective. They won’t generally risk the destruction of capital, even in slam-dunk cases. Vide WeWork.
- nradov 8mo ago
  Anthropic has an odd voting structure. While the CEO Dario Amodei holds no super-voting shares, there are special shares controlled by a separate council of trustees who aren't answerable to investors and who have the power to replace the Board. So in practice it comes down to personal relationships.
heresie-dabord 8mo ago
> it is simply the laws of money The First Law of Money: Money buys the Law.
- avmich 8mo ago
  That's maybe the second law. The first one is: money is always finite. Look at how Elon Musk behaved. Do you think VC gladly approved what he did with Twitter? They might want to keep chasing quarterly results - but sometimes, like with Zukerberg, they can't. Not enough money. Similar examples with Google rounds or how much more financially backed politician loses rather often to a competitor. Or, if you will, Vladimir Putin's idea that he can buy whatever results he wants - and that guy is a very wealthy person. There are always limits, putting the money law to the second place. We might argue that often the existing money is enough... but in more geopolitical, continuum-curving cases there are other powerful forces.
  - antonvs 8mo ago
    The Twitter acquisition wasn't funded by venture capital, so your question about VC approval doesn't apply. If you're using VC as a general term for "investor" (inaccurately), then the answer to your question is that the major investors, such as Larry Ellison and the Saudi monarchy, wanted political control of Twitter, which meant that they did (apparently) approve what Musk did with it.
    - avmich 8mo ago
      You're missing the point. It matters little where exactly money to pay for acquisition of Twitter came from. What matters is that nobody expected Twitter to lose employees and users in such numbers. So, whoever gave the money, was still limited in ensuring the results are "fully enough" in line with their wishes. Because money is always finite.
- ohbleek 8mo ago
  To quote Brennan Lee Mulligan, "Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic ethnic group in a given nation."
GorbachevyChase 8mo ago
I am suspicious the whole thing is a PR stunt to build public trust.
- absoluteunit1 8mo ago
  I share this sentiment. In general - I don’t know if it’s a coincidence but here on HN for example, I’ve noticed an increasing amount of comments and posts emphasizing the narrative of how “well- intended” Anthropic is.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ternwer 8mo ago
    Feel free to judge them by their actions rather than intentions. This situation being an example.
- Beestie 8mo ago
  I'd love to see the financial model that offsets losing your single biggest customer and substantial chunk of your annual revenue with some vague notion of public trust.
  - wartywhoa23 8mo ago
    I'd love to see any evidence that this single biggest customer is provably and irreversibly lost on all levels of scrutiny as a result of this attempt at building public trust.
  - mingus88 8mo ago
    This is so short sighted. We are so early into this AI revolution, and this administration is obviously in a tailspin, with the only folk left in charge being the least capable ones we have seen in a decade Imagine what the conversation would be like if Mattis, a highly decorated and respected leader were still the SecDef. Instead we are seeing bully tactics from a failed cable news pundit who has neither earned nor deserved any respect from the military he represents. We are two elections and a major health issue away from a complete change of course. But short sightedness is the name of the quarterly reporting game, so who knows.
Lutger 8mo ago
Surely you mean the laws of shareholder capitalism. There are many things you can do with money, and only some of them are legally backed by rules that ensure absolute shareholder power.

by dust42 8mo ago

qdotme 8mo ago

FWIW, I don’t actually know if board of Anthropic has actual power to replace its CEO or if Dario has retained some form of personal super-control shares Zuckerberg style. At some level of growth, the dynamics between competent founders and shareholders flip. Even if the board could afford to replace a CEO, it might not be worth it.

dust42 8mo ago
I'd counter that at this level of capital, if the CEO doesn't well align with the capital, then super-control shares will be overpowered by super-lawyers and if there is need some super-donations. OpenAI was a public interest company...
- blackqueeriroh 8mo ago
  This is fundamentally incorrect.
- qdotme 8mo ago
  Not at all. Especially at that level of capital. It’s the equity equivalent of „if you owe a bank a million dollars, you’re in trouble. If you owe a bank a billion dollars, the bank is in trouble”. Capital is extremely fungible. Typically extremely overleveraged. Lawyers are on the other hand extremely overprotective. They won’t generally risk the destruction of capital, even in slam-dunk cases. Vide WeWork.
nradov 8mo ago
Anthropic has an odd voting structure. While the CEO Dario Amodei holds no super-voting shares, there are special shares controlled by a separate council of trustees who aren't answerable to investors and who have the power to replace the Board. So in practice it comes down to personal relationships.

heresie-dabord 8mo ago

> it is simply the laws of money The First Law of Money: Money buys the Law.

avmich 8mo ago
That's maybe the second law. The first one is: money is always finite. Look at how Elon Musk behaved. Do you think VC gladly approved what he did with Twitter? They might want to keep chasing quarterly results - but sometimes, like with Zukerberg, they can't. Not enough money. Similar examples with Google rounds or how much more financially backed politician loses rather often to a competitor. Or, if you will, Vladimir Putin's idea that he can buy whatever results he wants - and that guy is a very wealthy person. There are always limits, putting the money law to the second place. We might argue that often the existing money is enough... but in more geopolitical, continuum-curving cases there are other powerful forces.
- antonvs 8mo ago
  The Twitter acquisition wasn't funded by venture capital, so your question about VC approval doesn't apply. If you're using VC as a general term for "investor" (inaccurately), then the answer to your question is that the major investors, such as Larry Ellison and the Saudi monarchy, wanted political control of Twitter, which meant that they did (apparently) approve what Musk did with it.
  - avmich 8mo ago
    You're missing the point. It matters little where exactly money to pay for acquisition of Twitter came from. What matters is that nobody expected Twitter to lose employees and users in such numbers. So, whoever gave the money, was still limited in ensuring the results are "fully enough" in line with their wishes. Because money is always finite.
ohbleek 8mo ago
To quote Brennan Lee Mulligan, "Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic ethnic group in a given nation."

GorbachevyChase 8mo ago

I am suspicious the whole thing is a PR stunt to build public trust.

absoluteunit1 8mo ago
I share this sentiment. In general - I don’t know if it’s a coincidence but here on HN for example, I’ve noticed an increasing amount of comments and posts emphasizing the narrative of how “well- intended” Anthropic is.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- ternwer 8mo ago
  Feel free to judge them by their actions rather than intentions. This situation being an example.
Beestie 8mo ago
I'd love to see the financial model that offsets losing your single biggest customer and substantial chunk of your annual revenue with some vague notion of public trust.
- wartywhoa23 8mo ago
  I'd love to see any evidence that this single biggest customer is provably and irreversibly lost on all levels of scrutiny as a result of this attempt at building public trust.
- mingus88 8mo ago
  This is so short sighted. We are so early into this AI revolution, and this administration is obviously in a tailspin, with the only folk left in charge being the least capable ones we have seen in a decade Imagine what the conversation would be like if Mattis, a highly decorated and respected leader were still the SecDef. Instead we are seeing bully tactics from a failed cable news pundit who has neither earned nor deserved any respect from the military he represents. We are two elections and a major health issue away from a complete change of course. But short sightedness is the name of the quarterly reporting game, so who knows.

Lutger 8mo ago

Surely you mean the laws of shareholder capitalism. There are many things you can do with money, and only some of them are legally backed by rules that ensure absolute shareholder power.