7 ms·

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about Anthropic's first response and the RSP update [1][2]. I think many peopl

by lebovic 7mo ago

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about Anthropic's first response and the RSP update [1][2]. I think many people on HN have a cynical reaction to Anthropic's actions due to of their own lived experiences with tech companies. Sometimes, that holds: my part of the company looked like Meta or Stripe, and it's hard not to regress to the mean as you scale. But not every pattern repeats, and the Anthropic of today is still driven by people who will risk losing a seat at the table to make principled decisions. I do not think this is a calculated ploy that's driven by making money. I think the decision was made because the people making this decision at Anthropic are well-intentioned, driven by values, and motivated by trying to make the transition to powerful AI to go well. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47174423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47174423 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47149908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47149908

Rapzid 7mo ago
[flagged]
- educasean 7mo ago
  All corporations are to an extent. It’s a question of magnitude, not absolutes. You, too, are driven by money. Yet I’m certain you maintain a set of principles and values. Let’s keep the discussion productive yeah?
  - Rapzid 7mo ago
    Sure, where is your productive output? Cause that's drivel. Anthropic kept referring to Hegseth as "Secretary of War" and the DoD as "Department of War". Which is horseshit. This whole thing is Anthropic flailing.
    - solenoid0937 7mo ago
      Come on. That is because this is a negotiation between Anthropic and the DoD and they understandably don't want to burn bridges. Do you just expect Anthropic to totally blow up all bridges to the government? What do you actually want them to do? Reading your comment history I'm not sure they could do anything to satisfy you.
      - Rapzid 7mo ago
        I'm not the one claiming they have principles so.. No? I expect them to do whatever they think they need to at any given moment to enrich themselves. Their "moat" is nothing more than momentum at this point. They are AOL on an accelerated timeline.
    - ParentiSoundSys 7mo ago
      Even as someone pretty staunchly opposed to this stupid "Gulf of America" Jahr Null bullshit from the Trump administration, I actually think the new labels are more honest about these institutions and their intended purpose.
jmount 7mo ago
So many tech companies have the "high values" screed that it really just seems like a standard step in the money plan.
- ParentiSoundSys 7mo ago
  Practically the entire tech industry, including many of the higher ups currently camping out on the right, used to be firmly in a sort of centrist-with-social-justice-characteristics camp. Then many of those same people enthusiastically stood with Trump at his inauguration. It's completely reasonable that people have their doubts now. It's also completely reasonable to expect that if Anthropic is the real deal and opposed to where the current agenda setters want to take things, they'll be destroyed for it.
  - rustystump 7mo ago
    Destroyed? No. But a new sharif is gonna show up while the existing exit stage left with big bags of nuts.
  - teiferer 7mo ago
    > enthusiastically stood with Trump I think "enthusiastically" looks different. They had to choose between kissing Trumps butt to make good business for 4 years or see their companies at a severe disadvantage. I'm not saying what they did was good, nor do I support it. But from a business angle it's not hard to see why they chose to do that. If you'd ask them privately off the record then I'm sure most of them would tell you that Trump is an idiot and dangerous.
    - ParentiSoundSys 7mo ago
      Mark Zuckerberg was in a big hurry to call Trump a "badass" in the wake of the Butler hoax, and is clearly trying to appeal to the right with his cultivated jiu jitsu Chad image. It doesn't mean a damn thing what these CEOs are willing to say behind closed doors when their public decisions are to remain in lockstep with the agenda and fire anyone who asks questions about whether it's the right one.
arjie 7mo ago
This is a pretty classic mistake most people who are in high-profile companies make. They think that some degree of appealing to people who were their erstwhile opponents will win them allies. But modern popular ethics are the Grim Trigger and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics. You cannot pass the purity test. One might even speculate that passing the purity test wouldn't do anything to get you acceptance. Personally, I wish that the political alignment I favour was as Big Tent as Donald Trump's administration is. I think he can get Zohran Mamdani in the room and say "it's fine; say you think I'm a fascist" and then nonetheless get what he wants. But it just so happens that the other side isn't so. So such is life. We lose and our allies dwindle since anyone who would make an overture to us, we punish for the sin of not having been born a steadfast believer. Our ideals are "If you weren't born supporting this cause, we will punish you for joining it as if you were an opponent". I don't think that's the path to getting what one wants.
- fladrif 7mo ago
  > political alignment I favour was as Big Tent as Donald Trump's administration is I'm not sure how accurate this sentiment is. Your desire is to embrace your enemy without resolving the differences, and get what you want. It's not clear here if you're advocating compromise and negotiation, or just embracing for the sake of embracing while just doing what you wanted all along. And evaluating Trump's actions against this sentiment doesn't seem to be the negotiation and compromise interpretation. Given the situation with tariffs and ICE enforcement, there is no indication of negotiation or compromise other than complete fealty/domination. So as grandiose and noble your sentiment is, Donald Trump is hardly the epitome of it as you seem to suggest.
  - arjie 7mo ago
    I think the differences in this situation were that I do not want AI used in domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons, and Anthropic holds to that position. I think Donald Trump has pretty much let Zohran Mamdani operate without applying the kind of political pressure he has applied to other people, notably his predecessor Eric Adams. Also, I think saying "let people be your allies when they take your position" is less "grandiose and noble" than demanding someone agree on all counts before you will accept any political alignment. But it's fine if everyone else disagrees. It's possible there really just isn't a political group which will accept my views and while that's unfortunate because it means I can't get all that I want, I think it'll be okay. One could reasonably argue that the meta-position is to either join the Republicans full-bore (somewhat unavailable to me) or to at least play the purity test game solely because that's the only way to have any influence on outcomes. If it comes to that, I'll do it.
white_dragon88 7mo ago
[dead]
BatFastard 7mo ago
I applaud Anthropic choice. Choosing principle over money is a hard choice. I love Anthropic's products and wish them success!
- randunel 7mo ago
  You applaud anthropic's choice to enhance mass surveillance of non-US people? If anthropic want mass surveillance, they should limit it to their own country, not to all other countries IMO.
19123127 7mo ago
Why did they work with Palantir then, which is the integrator in the DoD? It does not take a genius to figure out where this was going. I don't know why a personal testimony to the effect that "these are the good guys" needs to be at the top of every Anthropic thread. With respect to astroturfing and stealth marketing they are clearly the bad guys.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- jimmydoe 7mo ago
  The further away from God, the more need to believe there are good guys.
  - Sl1mb0 7mo ago
    God has been used as a justification for a lot of human suffering. My personal belief is that the closer to god you are; the more easily you can justify evil. How could you not? If my entire belief system is derived from faith, then there are *no* conclusions I could not come to, and therefore anything can be justified.
  - scrubs 7mo ago
    >further away from god What is that? Some new bit you're working on?
- margalabargala 7mo ago
  Anthropic's stance is "we believe in the use of our tools, with safeguards, to assist the defense of the US". So of course they would work with Palantir to deploy those tools. The issue we're seeing is because the DoW decided they no longer like the "with safeguards" part of the above and is trying to force Anthropic to remove them.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- prescriptivist 7mo ago
lich_king 7mo ago
My lived experience with tech companies is that principles are easy when they're free - i.e., when you're telling others what to do, or taking principled stances when a competitor is not breathing down your neck. So, with all respect, when someone tells me that the people they worked with were well-intentioned and driven by values, I take it with a grain of salt. Been there, said the same things, and then when the company needed to make tough calls, it all fell apart. However, in this instance, it does seem that Anthropic is walking away from money. I think that, in itself, is a pretty strong signal that you might be right.
- mkozlows 7mo ago
  I think it's definitely true that you should never count on a company to do principled things forever. But that doesn't mean that nothing is real or good. Like Google's support for the open web: They very sincerely did support it, they did a lot of good things for it. And then later, they decided that they didn't care as much. It was wrong to put your faith in them forever, but also wrong to treat that earlier sincerity as lies. In this case, Anthropic was doing a good thing, and they got punished for it, and if you agree with their stand, you should take their side.
  - eucyclos 7mo ago
    Google's support for the open week is a great example because it was obviously a good thing but also obviously built into their business model that they'd take that position. That made them a much more trustworthy company in those days, because abandoning that position would have required not just losing money for a while but changing their internal structure.
- cperciva 7mo ago
  principles are easy when they're free Indeed. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority; you only know that something is a real priority when you get an answer to the question "what will you sacrifice for this".
- benny20twenty 7mo ago
  [dead]
eh-tk 7mo ago
I also think this will ultimately benefit anthropic in the long run. Outlined in this article: https://open.substack.com/pub/zeitgeistml/p/murder-is-coming-to-ai-but-not-to https://open.substack.com/pub/zeitgeistml/p/murder-is-coming...
qsera 7mo ago
>driven by values Would the people who have invested in the company like that? Or would they like the company to make some money? Are they going to piss off their investors by being "driven by values"? I mean, please explain it to me how "driven by values" can be done when you are riding investor money. Or may be I am wrong and this company does not take investments. So in the end you are either 1. funding yourselves, then you are in control, so there is at least a justification for someone to believe you when you say that the company is "driven by values". 2. Or have taken investments, then you are NOT in control, then anyone who trusts you when you say the company is "driven by values", is plain stupid. In other words, when you start taking investment, you forego your right to claim virtuous. The only claim that you can expect anyone to believe is "MY COMPANY WILL MAKE A TRUCKLOAD OF MONEY !!!!"
- cornel_io 7mo ago
  As an investor in Anthropic, I'd say that anyone who wasn't aware of where they stood on various values issues the whole time should not have been putting money in, it was not hidden.
  - qsera 7mo ago
    How much is your investment (you don't have to be exact)? The bottom line is that if the investment is not profitable, then there will be less and less investment, because only fewer and fewer can afford to lose money and stick to their values, until no one will be investing; how ever high your values might be... Sticking to your values when it cost growth is not sustainable for publicly traded companies...
    - Kim_Bruning 7mo ago
      Anthropic is a public benefit corporation. Investors who put money in knew this. It's in the corporate charter. The corporate charter is a public document. Fiduciary duty means the board and officers must act in accordance with the governing documents of the corporation. Even a regular corporation doesn't need to be just for the purpose of "money goes up". The board has discretion on how they create value.
stouset 7mo ago
> I think the decision was made because the people making this decision at Anthropic are well-intentioned, driven by values, and motivated by trying to make the transition to powerful AI to go well. The entire problem is that this lasts as long as those people are in charge. Every incentive is aligned with eventually replacing them with people who don’t share those values, or eventually Anthropic will be out-competed by people who have no hesitation to put profit before principle.
- scrubs 7mo ago
  I mean, yah. How else could it be? Xerox, GE, IBM (1990 Gerstner) and a zillions of other rock stars fell hard. And had to be over hauled. Thats why continuous improvement is a thing, and why a platonic take on the world was never a thing.
prng2021 7mo ago
“I think the decision was made because the people making this decision at Anthropic are well-intentioned, driven by values, and motivated by trying to make the transition to powerful AI to go well.” Every single one of these CEOs happily pirated unimaginable amounts of copyrighted content. That directly hurt millions of real human beings. Not just the prior creators but also crushing the future potential for success of future ones. https://www.susmangodfrey.com/wins/susman-godfrey-secures-1-5-billion-settlement-in-landmark-ai-piracy-case https://www.susmangodfrey.com/wins/susman-godfrey-secures-1-...
array_key_first 7mo ago
Anthropics principles are extraordinarily weak from an absolute point of view. Don't surviel the US populace? Don't automate killing, make sure a human is in the loop? No, sorry, don't automate killing yet. Yeah dude, I'm sure just about any burglar I pull out of prison will agree. Listen yes, it's good compared to like 99% of US companies. But that really speaks more to the absolute moral bankruptcy of most companies, and not to Anthropics principles. That being said, yes we should applaud anthropic. Because yes this is rare and yes this is a step in the right direction. I just think we all need to acknowledge where we are right now, which is... not a good place.
- pcthrowaway 7mo ago
  > Because yes this is rare and yes this is a step in the right direction ehh.. I'd say it's a smaller step in the wrong direction than it could be.
sensanaty 7mo ago
The funniest or perhaps saddest (depending on your view) is that the "principles" we're talking about and apparently celebrating here are that they don't want to do DOMESTIC surveillance, and they don't want FULLY autonomous kill bots... Yet, because according to the CEO the models aren't there yet. Meaning, they're a-okay with: - Mass surveillance of non-US peoples (and let's be completely real here, they're in bed with Palantir already, so they're obviously okay with mass surveillance of everyone as long as they're not the ones that will be held culpable) - Autonomous murder bots. For now they want a human in the loop to rubberstamp things, but eventually "when the models improve" enough, they're just fine and dandy with their AIs being used as autonomous weapons. What the fuck are the principles we're talking about here? Why are they being celebrated for this psychotic viewpoint, exactly?
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
msla 7mo ago
If you're going to be cynical, at least credit them with some brains: MAGA isn't going to last forever, and when it collapses, the ones who publicly stood up to it will be better positioned to, I don't know, not face massive legal problems under whatever administration comes next. A government elected by middle-aged moms who use "Fuck ICE" as a friendly greeting isn't going to have any incentives to go easy on Palantir and Tesla.
- dust42 7mo ago
  Cynical or not, I think it was an absolutely brilliant move: "Mass domestic surveillance of Americans constitutes a violation of fundamental rights". I think they placed their bets on Sama signing a contract with the DoD and here we are, one day later the news that OpenAI signed a contract is out. An absolute PR disaster for OpenAI. And an absolute PR victory for Anthropic. I think OpenAI's IPO will be interesting. Not even the conservative media will be happy about mass surveillance of Americans. For non-Americans not much change, they don't really care about your rights more than about a pile of dog poo.
maddmann 7mo ago
This is an absolute rarity these days. Very appreciative of the true leadership on display here

by lebovic 7mo ago

Rapzid 7mo ago

[flagged]

educasean 7mo ago
All corporations are to an extent. It’s a question of magnitude, not absolutes. You, too, are driven by money. Yet I’m certain you maintain a set of principles and values. Let’s keep the discussion productive yeah?
- Rapzid 7mo ago
  Sure, where is your productive output? Cause that's drivel. Anthropic kept referring to Hegseth as "Secretary of War" and the DoD as "Department of War". Which is horseshit. This whole thing is Anthropic flailing.
  - solenoid0937 7mo ago
    Come on. That is because this is a negotiation between Anthropic and the DoD and they understandably don't want to burn bridges. Do you just expect Anthropic to totally blow up all bridges to the government? What do you actually want them to do? Reading your comment history I'm not sure they could do anything to satisfy you.
    - Rapzid 7mo ago
      I'm not the one claiming they have principles so.. No? I expect them to do whatever they think they need to at any given moment to enrich themselves. Their "moat" is nothing more than momentum at this point. They are AOL on an accelerated timeline.
  - ParentiSoundSys 7mo ago
    Even as someone pretty staunchly opposed to this stupid "Gulf of America" Jahr Null bullshit from the Trump administration, I actually think the new labels are more honest about these institutions and their intended purpose.

jmount 7mo ago

So many tech companies have the "high values" screed that it really just seems like a standard step in the money plan.

ParentiSoundSys 7mo ago
Practically the entire tech industry, including many of the higher ups currently camping out on the right, used to be firmly in a sort of centrist-with-social-justice-characteristics camp. Then many of those same people enthusiastically stood with Trump at his inauguration. It's completely reasonable that people have their doubts now. It's also completely reasonable to expect that if Anthropic is the real deal and opposed to where the current agenda setters want to take things, they'll be destroyed for it.
- rustystump 7mo ago
  Destroyed? No. But a new sharif is gonna show up while the existing exit stage left with big bags of nuts.
- teiferer 7mo ago
  > enthusiastically stood with Trump I think "enthusiastically" looks different. They had to choose between kissing Trumps butt to make good business for 4 years or see their companies at a severe disadvantage. I'm not saying what they did was good, nor do I support it. But from a business angle it's not hard to see why they chose to do that. If you'd ask them privately off the record then I'm sure most of them would tell you that Trump is an idiot and dangerous.
  - ParentiSoundSys 7mo ago
    Mark Zuckerberg was in a big hurry to call Trump a "badass" in the wake of the Butler hoax, and is clearly trying to appeal to the right with his cultivated jiu jitsu Chad image. It doesn't mean a damn thing what these CEOs are willing to say behind closed doors when their public decisions are to remain in lockstep with the agenda and fire anyone who asks questions about whether it's the right one.

arjie 7mo ago

This is a pretty classic mistake most people who are in high-profile companies make. They think that some degree of appealing to people who were their erstwhile opponents will win them allies. But modern popular ethics are the Grim Trigger and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics. You cannot pass the purity test. One might even speculate that passing the purity test wouldn't do anything to get you acceptance. Personally, I wish that the political alignment I favour was as Big Tent as Donald Trump's administration is. I think he can get Zohran Mamdani in the room and say "it's fine; say you think I'm a fascist" and then nonetheless get what he wants. But it just so happens that the other side isn't so. So such is life. We lose and our allies dwindle since anyone who would make an overture to us, we punish for the sin of not having been born a steadfast believer. Our ideals are "If you weren't born supporting this cause, we will punish you for joining it as if you were an opponent". I don't think that's the path to getting what one wants.

fladrif 7mo ago
> political alignment I favour was as Big Tent as Donald Trump's administration is I'm not sure how accurate this sentiment is. Your desire is to embrace your enemy without resolving the differences, and get what you want. It's not clear here if you're advocating compromise and negotiation, or just embracing for the sake of embracing while just doing what you wanted all along. And evaluating Trump's actions against this sentiment doesn't seem to be the negotiation and compromise interpretation. Given the situation with tariffs and ICE enforcement, there is no indication of negotiation or compromise other than complete fealty/domination. So as grandiose and noble your sentiment is, Donald Trump is hardly the epitome of it as you seem to suggest.
- arjie 7mo ago
  I think the differences in this situation were that I do not want AI used in domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons, and Anthropic holds to that position. I think Donald Trump has pretty much let Zohran Mamdani operate without applying the kind of political pressure he has applied to other people, notably his predecessor Eric Adams. Also, I think saying "let people be your allies when they take your position" is less "grandiose and noble" than demanding someone agree on all counts before you will accept any political alignment. But it's fine if everyone else disagrees. It's possible there really just isn't a political group which will accept my views and while that's unfortunate because it means I can't get all that I want, I think it'll be okay. One could reasonably argue that the meta-position is to either join the Republicans full-bore (somewhat unavailable to me) or to at least play the purity test game solely because that's the only way to have any influence on outcomes. If it comes to that, I'll do it.

white_dragon88 7mo ago

[dead]

BatFastard 7mo ago

I applaud Anthropic choice. Choosing principle over money is a hard choice. I love Anthropic's products and wish them success!

randunel 7mo ago
You applaud anthropic's choice to enhance mass surveillance of non-US people? If anthropic want mass surveillance, they should limit it to their own country, not to all other countries IMO.

19123127 7mo ago

Why did they work with Palantir then, which is the integrator in the DoD? It does not take a genius to figure out where this was going. I don't know why a personal testimony to the effect that "these are the good guys" needs to be at the top of every Anthropic thread. With respect to astroturfing and stealth marketing they are clearly the bad guys.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
jimmydoe 7mo ago
The further away from God, the more need to believe there are good guys.
- Sl1mb0 7mo ago
  God has been used as a justification for a lot of human suffering. My personal belief is that the closer to god you are; the more easily you can justify evil. How could you not? If my entire belief system is derived from faith, then there are *no* conclusions I could not come to, and therefore anything can be justified.
- scrubs 7mo ago
  >further away from god What is that? Some new bit you're working on?
margalabargala 7mo ago
Anthropic's stance is "we believe in the use of our tools, with safeguards, to assist the defense of the US". So of course they would work with Palantir to deploy those tools. The issue we're seeing is because the DoW decided they no longer like the "with safeguards" part of the above and is trying to force Anthropic to remove them.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
prescriptivist 7mo ago

lich_king 7mo ago

My lived experience with tech companies is that principles are easy when they're free - i.e., when you're telling others what to do, or taking principled stances when a competitor is not breathing down your neck. So, with all respect, when someone tells me that the people they worked with were well-intentioned and driven by values, I take it with a grain of salt. Been there, said the same things, and then when the company needed to make tough calls, it all fell apart. However, in this instance, it does seem that Anthropic is walking away from money. I think that, in itself, is a pretty strong signal that you might be right.

mkozlows 7mo ago
I think it's definitely true that you should never count on a company to do principled things forever. But that doesn't mean that nothing is real or good. Like Google's support for the open web: They very sincerely did support it, they did a lot of good things for it. And then later, they decided that they didn't care as much. It was wrong to put your faith in them forever, but also wrong to treat that earlier sincerity as lies. In this case, Anthropic was doing a good thing, and they got punished for it, and if you agree with their stand, you should take their side.
- eucyclos 7mo ago
  Google's support for the open week is a great example because it was obviously a good thing but also obviously built into their business model that they'd take that position. That made them a much more trustworthy company in those days, because abandoning that position would have required not just losing money for a while but changing their internal structure.
cperciva 7mo ago
principles are easy when they're free Indeed. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority; you only know that something is a real priority when you get an answer to the question "what will you sacrifice for this".
benny20twenty 7mo ago
[dead]

eh-tk 7mo ago

I also think this will ultimately benefit anthropic in the long run. Outlined in this article: https://open.substack.com/pub/zeitgeistml/p/murder-is-coming-to-ai-but-not-to https://open.substack.com/pub/zeitgeistml/p/murder-is-coming...

qsera 7mo ago

>driven by values Would the people who have invested in the company like that? Or would they like the company to make some money? Are they going to piss off their investors by being "driven by values"? I mean, please explain it to me how "driven by values" can be done when you are riding investor money. Or may be I am wrong and this company does not take investments. So in the end you are either 1. funding yourselves, then you are in control, so there is at least a justification for someone to believe you when you say that the company is "driven by values". 2. Or have taken investments, then you are NOT in control, then anyone who trusts you when you say the company is "driven by values", is plain stupid. In other words, when you start taking investment, you forego your right to claim virtuous. The only claim that you can expect anyone to believe is "MY COMPANY WILL MAKE A TRUCKLOAD OF MONEY !!!!"

cornel_io 7mo ago
As an investor in Anthropic, I'd say that anyone who wasn't aware of where they stood on various values issues the whole time should not have been putting money in, it was not hidden.
- qsera 7mo ago
  How much is your investment (you don't have to be exact)? The bottom line is that if the investment is not profitable, then there will be less and less investment, because only fewer and fewer can afford to lose money and stick to their values, until no one will be investing; how ever high your values might be... Sticking to your values when it cost growth is not sustainable for publicly traded companies...
  - Kim_Bruning 7mo ago
    Anthropic is a public benefit corporation. Investors who put money in knew this. It's in the corporate charter. The corporate charter is a public document. Fiduciary duty means the board and officers must act in accordance with the governing documents of the corporation. Even a regular corporation doesn't need to be just for the purpose of "money goes up". The board has discretion on how they create value.

stouset 7mo ago

> I think the decision was made because the people making this decision at Anthropic are well-intentioned, driven by values, and motivated by trying to make the transition to powerful AI to go well. The entire problem is that this lasts as long as those people are in charge. Every incentive is aligned with eventually replacing them with people who don’t share those values, or eventually Anthropic will be out-competed by people who have no hesitation to put profit before principle.

scrubs 7mo ago
I mean, yah. How else could it be? Xerox, GE, IBM (1990 Gerstner) and a zillions of other rock stars fell hard. And had to be over hauled. Thats why continuous improvement is a thing, and why a platonic take on the world was never a thing.

prng2021 7mo ago

“I think the decision was made because the people making this decision at Anthropic are well-intentioned, driven by values, and motivated by trying to make the transition to powerful AI to go well.” Every single one of these CEOs happily pirated unimaginable amounts of copyrighted content. That directly hurt millions of real human beings. Not just the prior creators but also crushing the future potential for success of future ones. https://www.susmangodfrey.com/wins/susman-godfrey-secures-1-5-billion-settlement-in-landmark-ai-piracy-case https://www.susmangodfrey.com/wins/susman-godfrey-secures-1-...

array_key_first 7mo ago

Anthropics principles are extraordinarily weak from an absolute point of view. Don't surviel the US populace? Don't automate killing, make sure a human is in the loop? No, sorry, don't automate killing yet. Yeah dude, I'm sure just about any burglar I pull out of prison will agree. Listen yes, it's good compared to like 99% of US companies. But that really speaks more to the absolute moral bankruptcy of most companies, and not to Anthropics principles. That being said, yes we should applaud anthropic. Because yes this is rare and yes this is a step in the right direction. I just think we all need to acknowledge where we are right now, which is... not a good place.

pcthrowaway 7mo ago
> Because yes this is rare and yes this is a step in the right direction ehh.. I'd say it's a smaller step in the wrong direction than it could be.

sensanaty 7mo ago

The funniest or perhaps saddest (depending on your view) is that the "principles" we're talking about and apparently celebrating here are that they don't want to do DOMESTIC surveillance, and they don't want FULLY autonomous kill bots... Yet, because according to the CEO the models aren't there yet. Meaning, they're a-okay with: - Mass surveillance of non-US peoples (and let's be completely real here, they're in bed with Palantir already, so they're obviously okay with mass surveillance of everyone as long as they're not the ones that will be held culpable) - Autonomous murder bots. For now they want a human in the loop to rubberstamp things, but eventually "when the models improve" enough, they're just fine and dandy with their AIs being used as autonomous weapons. What the fuck are the principles we're talking about here? Why are they being celebrated for this psychotic viewpoint, exactly?

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

msla 7mo ago

If you're going to be cynical, at least credit them with some brains: MAGA isn't going to last forever, and when it collapses, the ones who publicly stood up to it will be better positioned to, I don't know, not face massive legal problems under whatever administration comes next. A government elected by middle-aged moms who use "Fuck ICE" as a friendly greeting isn't going to have any incentives to go easy on Palantir and Tesla.

dust42 7mo ago
Cynical or not, I think it was an absolutely brilliant move: "Mass domestic surveillance of Americans constitutes a violation of fundamental rights". I think they placed their bets on Sama signing a contract with the DoD and here we are, one day later the news that OpenAI signed a contract is out. An absolute PR disaster for OpenAI. And an absolute PR victory for Anthropic. I think OpenAI's IPO will be interesting. Not even the conservative media will be happy about mass surveillance of Americans. For non-Americans not much change, they don't really care about your rights more than about a pile of dog poo.

maddmann 7mo ago

This is an absolute rarity these days. Very appreciative of the true leadership on display here