5 ms·

You are right to feel that way about the frontier labs, especially Anthropic. From https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/ https://stratecher

You are right to feel that way about the frontier labs, especially Anthropic. From https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/ https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/ > "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."

usef- 2mo ago
To be fair, we're simultaneously mocking anthropic for believing in safety so much and also for them thinking they're the only ones that care enough about it. It's true that no one else seems to care as much. Judging by reactions from everyone, all their safety talk is very bad PR.
- nullsanity 2mo ago
  [dead]
- red_green_yell 2mo ago
  The criticism isn't that they believe in safety too much. It's that they patently using safety as a red herring with the actual goal of regulating away competition that they know the cannot beat.
  - usef- 2mo ago
    The people involved have been talking about safety long before they had any users or a company. "Concrete Problems in AI Safety" by Dario and another founder was published 2016, anthropic was founded 2021. Among a bunch of other examples, including other founders. If safety is seen as a joke now, it was really seen as a joke back then. The reason they keep shooting themselves in the foot with bad PR is because they truly believe in risks.
    - anon373839 2mo ago
      I’m sorry, but this do-gooder concept doesn’t jibe with their other actions. For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic. And for safety? Oh yeah, they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments.
      - senordevnyc 2mo ago
        For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic. Completely unrelated to AI safety. they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments It seems blindingly obvious to me that you'd want to let trusted organizations use the models defensively, which means without guardrails, and that you'd probably gate that behind some kind of enterprise sales process, for multiple reasons. Honestly, it just seems like you have an axe to grind and aren't really particularly knowledgeable (or curious) about AI safety.
        anon373839 2mo ago
        1. This is not “unrelated to AI safety”. The things they seek in the name of AI safety always seem to be aligned with the path that will eliminate competition and give them maximum economic power. Thus, to disentangle what is sincere and what is ulterior, we have to look at the leadership’s character holistically. A ruthlessly unethical and cutthroat corporation that is also seeking unprecedented power doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt when it claims to be doing this for altruistic reasons. 2. You misstated what I wrote. My gripe is not that they have an enterprise sales process. It’s that in negotiations, they say “we’ll drop the safeguards if you agree to spend more”. I haven’t heard of any groundbreaking AI safety research concluding that spending more with Anthropic makes the models safer, but maybe Dario has a new blog post coming. 3. Check your tone.
        senordevnyc 2mo ago
- t43562 2mo ago
  What they believe now or care about is fundamentally not very relevant: allowing them a monopoly would be a big mistake. Google was supposed to do no evil and it probably started that way but nothing guarantees the future other than having alternatives.

usef- 2mo ago

To be fair, we're simultaneously mocking anthropic for believing in safety so much and also for them thinking they're the only ones that care enough about it. It's true that no one else seems to care as much. Judging by reactions from everyone, all their safety talk is very bad PR.

nullsanity 2mo ago
[dead]
red_green_yell 2mo ago
The criticism isn't that they believe in safety too much. It's that they patently using safety as a red herring with the actual goal of regulating away competition that they know the cannot beat.
- usef- 2mo ago
  The people involved have been talking about safety long before they had any users or a company. "Concrete Problems in AI Safety" by Dario and another founder was published 2016, anthropic was founded 2021. Among a bunch of other examples, including other founders. If safety is seen as a joke now, it was really seen as a joke back then. The reason they keep shooting themselves in the foot with bad PR is because they truly believe in risks.
  - anon373839 2mo ago
    I’m sorry, but this do-gooder concept doesn’t jibe with their other actions. For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic. And for safety? Oh yeah, they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments.
    - senordevnyc 2mo ago
      For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic. Completely unrelated to AI safety. they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments It seems blindingly obvious to me that you'd want to let trusted organizations use the models defensively, which means without guardrails, and that you'd probably gate that behind some kind of enterprise sales process, for multiple reasons. Honestly, it just seems like you have an axe to grind and aren't really particularly knowledgeable (or curious) about AI safety.
      - anon373839 2mo ago
        1. This is not “unrelated to AI safety”. The things they seek in the name of AI safety always seem to be aligned with the path that will eliminate competition and give them maximum economic power. Thus, to disentangle what is sincere and what is ulterior, we have to look at the leadership’s character holistically. A ruthlessly unethical and cutthroat corporation that is also seeking unprecedented power doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt when it claims to be doing this for altruistic reasons. 2. You misstated what I wrote. My gripe is not that they have an enterprise sales process. It’s that in negotiations, they say “we’ll drop the safeguards if you agree to spend more”. I haven’t heard of any groundbreaking AI safety research concluding that spending more with Anthropic makes the models safer, but maybe Dario has a new blog post coming. 3. Check your tone.
        senordevnyc 2mo ago
t43562 2mo ago
What they believe now or care about is fundamentally not very relevant: allowing them a monopoly would be a big mistake. Google was supposed to do no evil and it probably started that way but nothing guarantees the future other than having alternatives.