[JohnnyMarcone]

How do you parse the difference between marketing and having values? I have difficulty with that and I would love to understand how people can be confident one way or the other. In many instances, the marketing becomes so disconnected from actions that it's obvious. That hasn't happen with Anthropic for me.

[mrdependable]

I am a fairly cynical person. Anthropic could have made this statement at any time, but they chose to do it when OpenAI says they are going to start showing ads, so view it in that context. They are saying this to try to get people angry about ads to drop OpenAI and move to Anthropic. For them, not having ads supports their current objective.

When you accept the amount of investments that these companies have, you don't get to guide your company based on principles. Can you imagine someone in a boardroom saying, "Everyone, we can't do this. Sure it will make us a ton of money, but it's wrong!" Don't forget, OpenAI had a lot of public goodwill in the beginning as well. Whatever principles Dario Amodei has as an individual, I'm sure he can show us with his personal fortune.

Parsing it is all about intention. If someone drops coffee on your computer, should you be angry? It depends on if they did it on purpose, or it was an accident. When a company posts a statement that ads are incongruous to their mission, what is their intention behind the message?

[JoshTriplett]

> Anthropic could have made this statement at any time, but they chose to do it when OpenAI says they are going to start showing ads, so view it in that context.

Obviously they did do it for that reason, but it does make sense. They've positioned themselves from day 1 as the AI company built on more values; that doesn't make them good but it's self-consistent. If, out of the blue earlier on when nobody was talking about ads in AI, they said "we're not going to put ads in AI", that would have been a Suspiciously Specific Denial: "our shirt saying we're not going to put ads in AI has people asking a lot of questions already answered by our shirt".

> Can you imagine someone in a boardroom saying, "Everyone, we can't do this. Sure it will make us a ton of money, but it's wrong!"

Yes. But that's not how you'd say it. "First of all, this would go against our established ethical principles, which you knew when you invested with us. Second, those ethical principles define our position in the market, which we should not abandon."

[thinkling]

Ideally, ethical buyers would cause the market to line up behind ethical products. For that to be possible, we have to have choices available to us. Seems to me Anthropic is making such a choice available to see if buyers will line up behind it.

[fogzen]

“Ideally” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

[kvirani]

Wow. Well said.

[advisedwang]

Companies, not begin sentient, don't have values, only their leaders/employees do. The question then becomes "when are the humans free to implement their values in their work, and when aren't they". You need to inspecting ownership structure, size, corporate charter and so on, and realize that it varies with time and situation.

Anthropic being a PBC probably helps.

[hungryhobbit]

>Companies, not begin sentient, don't have values, only their leaders/employees do

Isn't that a distinction without a difference? Every real world company has employees, and those people do have values (well, except the psychopaths).

[advisedwang]

My point is that the leaders have constraints on them that prevent them actually executing on their values. E.g. imagine leadership dislikes spam, but an institutional investor on the board has warned the CEO that if there's a sales dip before quarterly earnings and the market reacts badly he'll get fired. So the CEO - against his values - orders the VP or marketing to spam for all his life is worth. This stuff gets so internalized, that we routinely make decisions at work that go against our values because we know that's what's demanded of us by our organizations.

[Lanzaa]

I think there are two key imperatives that lead to company "psychopathy".

The first imperative is a company must survive past its employees. A company is an explicit legal structure designed to survive past the initial people in the company. A company is _not_ the employees, it is what survives past the employees' employment.

The second imperative is the diffusion of responsibility. A company becomes the responsible party for actions taken, not individual employees. This is part of the reason we allow companies to survive past employees, because their obligations survive as well.

This leads to individual employees taking actions for the company against their own moral code for the good of the company.

See also The Corporation (2003 film) and Meditations On Moloch (2014)[0].

[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

[agluszak]

> How do you parse the difference between marketing and having values?

You don't. Companies want people to think they have values. But companies are not people. Companies exist to earn money.

> That hasn't happen with Anthropic for me.

Yet.

[yMEyUyNE1]

> Companies exist to earn money

By providing product or services of value, not by maximing profits at any cost (definitely not by taking advantage of people, shortcomings of rules/laws, ... , or by harming people, ... , environment)

[agluszak]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not

[whattheheckheck]

Humans don't have values either

[ulbu]

what the heck heck

[bigyabai]

No company has values. Anthropic's resistance to the administration is only as strong as their incentive to resist, and that incentive is money. Their execs love the "Twitter vs Facebook" comparison that makes Sam Altman look so evil and gives them a relative halo effect. To an extent, Sam Altman revels in the evil persona that makes him appear like the Darth Vader of some amorphous emergent technology. Both are very profitable optics to their respective audiences.

If you lend any amount of real-world credence to the value of marketing, you're already giving the ad what it wants. This is (partially) why so many businesses pivoted to viral marketing and Twitter/X outreach that feels genuine, but requires only basic rhetorical comprehension to appease your audience. "Here at WhatsApp, we care deeply about human rights!" *audience loudly cheers*

[astrange]

Anthropic is a PBC, not a "company", and the people who work there basically all belong to AI safety as a religion. Being incredibly cynical is generally dumb, but it's especially dumb to apply "for profit company" incentives to something that isn't a traditional "for profit company".

[YetAnotherNick]

The difference is if they are willingly ready to lose money on a personal level. If folks in the company are not willing to sacrifice their comp for good, they are not "good" guys.

For Anthropic and lot of startups with very high growth(even including OpenAI 4 years back or Google or Amazon), they don't have to lose anything to be good as they can just raise money. But when the growth stops that's when the test starts.

[Computer0]

People have values, Corporations do not.

[haritha-j]

I believe in "too big to have values". No company that has grown beyond a certain size has ever had true values. Only shareholder wealth maximisation goals.

[astrange]

Anthropic is a PBC. The shareholder goals are public benefit (PB) not "wealth maximization".

(Also, wealth maximization is a dumb goal and not how successful companies work. Cynicism is a bad strategy for being rich because it's too shortsighted.)

[haritha-j]

Yes and OpenAI was a not for profit and look how that’s going. Now it’s a PBC. So Anthropic won’t even be the first PBC AI company pretending that they’re doing it for the good of the world and then trying to shove in porn and Add for wealth maximisation. Also most companies that go big have an IPO, and it’s mostly just about short term strategies to make share price go up after that.