| This feedback is one point of view on why documents like these read as insincere. You guys raised $7.3b. You are talking about abstract stuff you actually have little control over, but if you wanted to make secure software, you could do it. For a mere $100m of your budget, you could fix every security bug in the open source software you use, and giving it away completely for free. OpenAI gives away software for free all the time, it gets massively adopted, it's a perfectly fine playbook. You could even pay people to adopt. You could spend a fraction of your budget fixing the software you use, and then it seems justified, well I should listen to Anthropic's abstract opinions about so-and-so future risks. Your gut reaction is, "that's not what this document is about." Man, it is what your document is about! (1) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (2) Every piece of corporate communications you write is as much about what it doesn't say as it is about what it does. Basic communications. Why are you talking about abstract risks? I don't know. It boggles the mind how large the budget is. ML companies seem to be organizing into R&D, Product and "Humanities" divisions, and the humanities divisions seem all over the place. You already agree with me, everything you say in your RSP is true, there's just no incentive for the people working at a weird Amazon balance sheet call option called Anthropic to develop operating systems or fix open source projects. You guys have long histories with deep visibility into giant corporate boondoggles like Fuschia or whatever. I use Claude: do you want to be a #2 to OpenAI or do you want to do something different? |