4 ms·

I worked at Anthropic, and I wouldn't attribute much to the structure itself – so I'm wary of using it as a positive example here. I do attribute a lot to spec

by lebovic 4mo ago

I worked at Anthropic, and I wouldn't attribute much to the structure itself – so I'm wary of using it as a positive example here. I do attribute a lot to specific people. Concretely, to much of the intitial team, who they recruited on the research/infra side, and some very close personal relationships within research/infra. That dynamic, paired with their unwillingness to accede to something against their values, is what I credit for some atypical decisions and outcomes [1]. Things regulary go "corrupt" in parts of the company; it's hard to scale without importing culture from big tech. Sometimes, the defense was ICs escalating issues, Dario talking to ICs, and then shaking things up. But this process takes time, and it doesn't lead to a full reversal; a bad/misaligned hire has reverberating impacts. Many folks are still driven by values (even if their values are not your values!), but scaling dynamics seem to be evolving like any other org – just at a higher employee count and revenue numbers. I do place trust in specific people who work at Anthropic, but I wouldn't place trust in Anthropic the organization. It's an organization that's wont to change, regardless of its structure. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47174423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47174423

eries 4mo ago
Your comment is very astute. A structure is like a shell. It can only protect what is within. It does not cause what's within to be vital, healthy, or unhealthy. But if you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself.
- lebovic 4mo ago
  > If you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself. Is there something that happened which you don't think would have come to pass with a standard PBC/C-Corp (without the LTBT)? I'm trying to think of one, but nothing is coming to mind. I think the structure attracted many people to Anthropic (e.g. an RSP that could only be overridden by the LTBT), but I'm not sure it has demonstrated a practical impact. As an aside, I think a lot about this problem too! But the answers that don't reduce to something like "the people, and the people to whom they give power" seem to break down when I look closely.
  - skybrian 4mo ago
    Do you think their dispute with the Department of Defense would have gone the same way? We didn't see that at OpenAI or Google. (Although it does remind me a bit of Google pulling out of China back in the day.)
    - lebovic 4mo ago
      Yeah, I lean towards the structure not being the cause of the outcome here (i.e. if you rotated the governance structure of Anthropic and OpenAI, I think the decisions at each would likely stay the same). If they made that decision and it destroyed revenue, I could see an alternate timeline where a standard C-Corp + board with non-founder control may have ousted leadership. But that wasn't the situation for OpenAI or Google either, and their leadership still made a different decision.
      - eries 4mo ago
        I just like to ask one little question: Who chose the structure in the first place? It's kind of a chicken and egg situation.
        lebovic 4mo ago
        Sure, but their question was whether different structure/governance would have changed that decision.
    - nostrademons 4mo ago
      I was at Google when it pulled out of China. GP's post reminds me a lot of early Google - it wasn't evil because there were people in high places, who were critical to its operations, who cared deeply about doing the right thing, and as a result other people who cared about doing the right thing felt like they had cover, and people who were willing to do the wrong thing to hit a short-term number found that they were marginalized. It changed slowly, one departure at a time, as the wrong people got into positions of power and started providing cover to people willing to do the wrong thing. A lot of it also had to do with declining market power: when Google was universally on top, they felt like they could do the right thing without serious negative consequences, but when they were fighting for control of a market, they felt they had to make compromises lest some other firm (being honest: Facebook) would end up in power and do the wrong thing anyway. Unfortunately there doesn't really seem to be a cure for institutional decay. Once unethical people get in power, they hire other unethical people, and then you're just stuck in Game of Thrones. You have to go quit and found another company, and single-mindedly keep all those people away, kinda like Anthropic did when they left OpenAI.
- patcon 4mo ago
  > But if you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself. With respect to OP (who has a unique vantage from inside), I do agree with this on principle. When there are uncommon outcomes, there must be uncommon structure imho. A "good structure" is like oxygen, water, or peace: When it's well-maintained and well-distributed, one might not even notice it's there, nor spend much time being grateful for it. It's banal, but "what do you mean? isn't this just how things would always have been?" is both beautiful and tragic. Imho if we could figure out how to have a "loud peace" (in all the ways that this might mean), we'd have figured out an important way of sustaining the world and ourselves.
  - zaphar 4mo ago
    The structure requires maintenance and that is done by an individual or individuals. The real reasons a good company stays good is because the leadership stays good. When the leadership begins to disengage or leaves or changes in some way then the structure will begin to break down. You can't fix it with a "better" structure. It will decay over time unless someone is actively maintaining it.
    - patcon 4mo ago
      I think I agree..! I get the sense you were feeling at odds with my framing? I wonder if it's that you're picking up that I believe "structure" is above any one person or set of people. In my conception, leadership is just part of structure, a key maintainer. Leadership are pieces of the structure, but subordinate in scale. They sometimes seek outside help in shaping structure (e.g., ppl like eries), and the structure becomes like another passive actor, not simply "leadership's doing". Leadership are key players taking care of the structure, but they are just one set of players, and in some structures, non-leadership employees play an outsized role (often because leadership knew enough to step back). Sometimes the role of leadership if "fucking right off" in certain domains. Regardless, the structure then guides behaviour of all within it, and hopefully the structure also maintains us, at least as much as we maintain it. I'm stating the above as if it's universally true, but it's just my take. I'd be curious to know if any parts give you strong YES or NO feelings, if you are open to share your gut reaction. Blunt responses welcome (Fwiw I lean heavily on the ideas of Christopher Alexander -- the Pattern Language guy -- in regards to my beliefs on "structure": https://dorian.substack.com/p/at-any-given-moment-in-a-process https://dorian.substack.com/p/at-any-given-moment-in-a-proce... )
propagandist 4mo ago
Were those upright people abducted by aliens when you started working with Palantir and the "DoW"?
- lebovic 4mo ago
  Having values doesn't mean they're "the right" values nor the same as your values. Regardless, it's still atypical in the context of an American company, and it can help explain the differences between Anthropic and its peers. That doesn't mean I agree with their decisions or that they're "the right" decisions, but I think it's a helpful framing in which to understand them.
  - claw-el 4mo ago
    Is “having values” just “stubborn” then?
    - lebovic 4mo ago
      I think the difference is the ability to be persuaded by a strong argument that you've critically evaluated. Some people are unjustly called stubborn when they don't change their position based on a weak argument from an authority figure. And others claim values, but they're just stubbornly adhering to something that feels good to believe.
    - BoingBoomTschak 4mo ago
      "Integrity" would be a fairer term. At least enough of it to not let money sway you.
chrisgd 4mo ago
What does ICs stand for?
- brianwawok 4mo ago
  Individual contributor? A nice way to say people who aren’t managers
- sanswork 4mo ago
  Individual contributor(non-managers)
- lebovic 4mo ago
  Individual contributor; i.e. not a manager. (This isn't a dig on managers; I've been one. But if a situation doesn't naturally escalate, that usually means a manager in the chain chose not to escalate it, and their reports have to go around them.)
- 2001zhaozhao 4mo ago
  individual contributor
2001zhaozhao 4mo ago
> scaling dynamics seem to be evolving like any other org – just at a higher employee count and revenue numbers. I really wonder if it's possible to avoid these dynamics, even if you try really hard. If not, it seems to me that goal alignment is the main benefit of a hypothetical lean AI company where the middle management is 1% people and 99% tokens. When most of your decision-making is not being siphoned by politics, your output scales far better with respect to input resources.
felooboolooomba 4mo ago
Totally agree about the people. I've seen a bad hire blow up a 20 person startup. I've seen 5 person company excel since they worked more like 5x5 persons than 5 individuals.
- aquariusDue 4mo ago
  Yeah, I generally dislike platitudes yet "one bad apple spoils the bunch" seems to apply more often than not sadly.
davedx 4mo ago
The policy decision to silently nerf AI/ML code produced by Fable surely wasn't just something "accidentally imported via a bad hire"? It seems to me like Anthropic wants to control who can develop frontier AI models. Maybe from inside Anthropic that seems like a noble mission, but from the outside it seems like downright shady anti-competitive behavior. I saw in latest news the decision has been partially reversed -- because of external pressure...
- lebovic 4mo ago
  My point was that Anthropic has tended to make atypical decisions vs. its peers, not that they're always the right decisions. The direction of those decisions has tended towards assuming exponential growth of AI will continue and a certain flavor of AI safety. This decision does seem in line with what I would expect from Anthropic, so I don't see it as a sign of changing values – even if I personally disagree.

by lebovic 4mo ago

eries 4mo ago

Your comment is very astute. A structure is like a shell. It can only protect what is within. It does not cause what's within to be vital, healthy, or unhealthy. But if you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself.

lebovic 4mo ago
> If you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself. Is there something that happened which you don't think would have come to pass with a standard PBC/C-Corp (without the LTBT)? I'm trying to think of one, but nothing is coming to mind. I think the structure attracted many people to Anthropic (e.g. an RSP that could only be overridden by the LTBT), but I'm not sure it has demonstrated a practical impact. As an aside, I think a lot about this problem too! But the answers that don't reduce to something like "the people, and the people to whom they give power" seem to break down when I look closely.
- skybrian 4mo ago
  Do you think their dispute with the Department of Defense would have gone the same way? We didn't see that at OpenAI or Google. (Although it does remind me a bit of Google pulling out of China back in the day.)
  - lebovic 4mo ago
    Yeah, I lean towards the structure not being the cause of the outcome here (i.e. if you rotated the governance structure of Anthropic and OpenAI, I think the decisions at each would likely stay the same). If they made that decision and it destroyed revenue, I could see an alternate timeline where a standard C-Corp + board with non-founder control may have ousted leadership. But that wasn't the situation for OpenAI or Google either, and their leadership still made a different decision.
    - eries 4mo ago
      I just like to ask one little question: Who chose the structure in the first place? It's kind of a chicken and egg situation.
      - lebovic 4mo ago
        Sure, but their question was whether different structure/governance would have changed that decision.
  - nostrademons 4mo ago
    I was at Google when it pulled out of China. GP's post reminds me a lot of early Google - it wasn't evil because there were people in high places, who were critical to its operations, who cared deeply about doing the right thing, and as a result other people who cared about doing the right thing felt like they had cover, and people who were willing to do the wrong thing to hit a short-term number found that they were marginalized. It changed slowly, one departure at a time, as the wrong people got into positions of power and started providing cover to people willing to do the wrong thing. A lot of it also had to do with declining market power: when Google was universally on top, they felt like they could do the right thing without serious negative consequences, but when they were fighting for control of a market, they felt they had to make compromises lest some other firm (being honest: Facebook) would end up in power and do the wrong thing anyway. Unfortunately there doesn't really seem to be a cure for institutional decay. Once unethical people get in power, they hire other unethical people, and then you're just stuck in Game of Thrones. You have to go quit and found another company, and single-mindedly keep all those people away, kinda like Anthropic did when they left OpenAI.
patcon 4mo ago
> But if you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself. With respect to OP (who has a unique vantage from inside), I do agree with this on principle. When there are uncommon outcomes, there must be uncommon structure imho. A "good structure" is like oxygen, water, or peace: When it's well-maintained and well-distributed, one might not even notice it's there, nor spend much time being grateful for it. It's banal, but "what do you mean? isn't this just how things would always have been?" is both beautiful and tragic. Imho if we could figure out how to have a "loud peace" (in all the ways that this might mean), we'd have figured out an important way of sustaining the world and ourselves.
- zaphar 4mo ago
  The structure requires maintenance and that is done by an individual or individuals. The real reasons a good company stays good is because the leadership stays good. When the leadership begins to disengage or leaves or changes in some way then the structure will begin to break down. You can't fix it with a "better" structure. It will decay over time unless someone is actively maintaining it.
  - patcon 4mo ago
    I think I agree..! I get the sense you were feeling at odds with my framing? I wonder if it's that you're picking up that I believe "structure" is above any one person or set of people. In my conception, leadership is just part of structure, a key maintainer. Leadership are pieces of the structure, but subordinate in scale. They sometimes seek outside help in shaping structure (e.g., ppl like eries), and the structure becomes like another passive actor, not simply "leadership's doing". Leadership are key players taking care of the structure, but they are just one set of players, and in some structures, non-leadership employees play an outsized role (often because leadership knew enough to step back). Sometimes the role of leadership if "fucking right off" in certain domains. Regardless, the structure then guides behaviour of all within it, and hopefully the structure also maintains us, at least as much as we maintain it. I'm stating the above as if it's universally true, but it's just my take. I'd be curious to know if any parts give you strong YES or NO feelings, if you are open to share your gut reaction. Blunt responses welcome (Fwiw I lean heavily on the ideas of Christopher Alexander -- the Pattern Language guy -- in regards to my beliefs on "structure": https://dorian.substack.com/p/at-any-given-moment-in-a-process https://dorian.substack.com/p/at-any-given-moment-in-a-proce... )

propagandist 4mo ago

Were those upright people abducted by aliens when you started working with Palantir and the "DoW"?

lebovic 4mo ago
Having values doesn't mean they're "the right" values nor the same as your values. Regardless, it's still atypical in the context of an American company, and it can help explain the differences between Anthropic and its peers. That doesn't mean I agree with their decisions or that they're "the right" decisions, but I think it's a helpful framing in which to understand them.
- claw-el 4mo ago
  Is “having values” just “stubborn” then?
  - lebovic 4mo ago
    I think the difference is the ability to be persuaded by a strong argument that you've critically evaluated. Some people are unjustly called stubborn when they don't change their position based on a weak argument from an authority figure. And others claim values, but they're just stubbornly adhering to something that feels good to believe.
  - BoingBoomTschak 4mo ago
    "Integrity" would be a fairer term. At least enough of it to not let money sway you.

chrisgd 4mo ago

What does ICs stand for?

brianwawok 4mo ago
Individual contributor? A nice way to say people who aren’t managers
sanswork 4mo ago
Individual contributor(non-managers)
lebovic 4mo ago
Individual contributor; i.e. not a manager. (This isn't a dig on managers; I've been one. But if a situation doesn't naturally escalate, that usually means a manager in the chain chose not to escalate it, and their reports have to go around them.)
2001zhaozhao 4mo ago
individual contributor

2001zhaozhao 4mo ago

> scaling dynamics seem to be evolving like any other org – just at a higher employee count and revenue numbers. I really wonder if it's possible to avoid these dynamics, even if you try really hard. If not, it seems to me that goal alignment is the main benefit of a hypothetical lean AI company where the middle management is 1% people and 99% tokens. When most of your decision-making is not being siphoned by politics, your output scales far better with respect to input resources.

felooboolooomba 4mo ago

Totally agree about the people. I've seen a bad hire blow up a 20 person startup. I've seen 5 person company excel since they worked more like 5x5 persons than 5 individuals.

aquariusDue 4mo ago
Yeah, I generally dislike platitudes yet "one bad apple spoils the bunch" seems to apply more often than not sadly.

davedx 4mo ago

The policy decision to silently nerf AI/ML code produced by Fable surely wasn't just something "accidentally imported via a bad hire"? It seems to me like Anthropic wants to control who can develop frontier AI models. Maybe from inside Anthropic that seems like a noble mission, but from the outside it seems like downright shady anti-competitive behavior. I saw in latest news the decision has been partially reversed -- because of external pressure...

lebovic 4mo ago
My point was that Anthropic has tended to make atypical decisions vs. its peers, not that they're always the right decisions. The direction of those decisions has tended towards assuming exponential growth of AI will continue and a certain flavor of AI safety. This decision does seem in line with what I would expect from Anthropic, so I don't see it as a sign of changing values – even if I personally disagree.