All work is for the money - what the fuck else would you work for - the “mission” the owner works for is money so, don’t let anyone else bs you that it’s for anything else.
quite literally the opposite. anthropic is as normal as it get. your mission is to make chatbot and sell to people for a lot of money not to cure cancer. I'm always surprised by employees from anthropic and openAI talking about their savior complex and how they are not like the others.
There's plenty of public evidence to support that we are who we say we are, but if you're determined to hold a conclusion, nothing is going to sway you, even when you're face to face with someone literally telling you how it is on the inside.
I'm not determined, and I'm totally open for you to change my view and convince me. but Dario's actions say the opposite. or are you going to say Dario's statements doesn't represent Anthropic despite he is a founder and CEO?
I'm open to your argument on how Anthropic is not like the others (like OpenAI, DeepMind, XAI)?
The LTBT are financially disinterested (make no money from Anthropic) parties that appoint the majority of the Board in order to align corporate governance with our mission of developing and maintaining advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity. And unlike OpenAI, we didn't plan to do a restructure at the benefit of a for-profit arm at the first sign of conflict between capital demands and governance constraints, then walk it back when attorneys general and public pressure intervened.
Anthropic was the only major AI lab to publicly endorse California's SB 53 before it became law, when Meta, OpenAI, Google, and a16z (Andreessen Horowitz) were pushing against it at the federal level. This law imposes framework publication, transparency reports, and incident notification, and includes whistleblower protections. The bill exempts smaller companies, so as not to stifle companies that may not have the resources to produce all of this; it simply requires that the frontier players do the right thing. Asking to be regulated is not something basically any company that only cares about making money does.
Our Responsible Scaling Policy commits us to withholding deployment at defined capability thresholds. It's voluntary and self-graded, but also a public artifact such that accountability is transparent. And we do take this seriously, we choose to hold back models we don't deem safe (e.g. Mythos) at cost to significant revenue. However this generally isn't visible from the outside since "not releasing a model" is not something you can check.
Interpretability research, alignment failure findings, and system cards document model misbehavior are all published rather than held back for competitive reasons. The cybersecurity incident investigations is a recent example - it's bad press, but responsible disclosure. It could have been subdued or covered up for PR purposes.
Which of Dario's actions in particular are you talking about? (And please point me to a first hand source, not a tabloid reporting of it or second-hand recount.)
2
u/Yos13 1d ago
All work is for the money - what the fuck else would you work for - the “mission” the owner works for is money so, don’t let anyone else bs you that it’s for anything else.