[solenoid0937]

> whether the company that branded itself as the ethical AI lab actually is one

FWIW I have two(!!) close friends working for Anthropic, one for nearly two years and one for about 4 months.

Both of them tell me that this is not just marketing, that the company actually is ethical and safety conscious everywhere, and that this was the most surprising part about joining Anthropic for them. They insist the culture is actually genuine which is practically unicorn rarity in corporate America.

We have worked for FAANG so I know where they're coming from; this got me to drop my cynicism for once and I plan on interviewing with them soon. Hopefully I can answer this question for myself.

[root_axis]

Yeah, every engineer in the bay area has a way of framing the business they work for as a benign force for good... Until they find themselves working somewhere else, then suddenly they have a lot to say about the unacceptable things going on there.

From the outside, I find Anthropic's hyperbolic marketing to be an indication that they are basically the same as every other bay area tech startup - more or less nice folks who are primarily concerned with money and status. That's not a condemnation, but I reject all the "do no evil" fanfare as conveniently self serving.

[fwipsy]

My model is that Anthropic was founded by OpenAI engineers who self-selected for safety-consciousness. However, it's still subject to the same problem: power corrupts. I think they are better than OpenAI but they are definitely sliding.

[kranke155]

Eventually something like what happened with the DOW might happen again (hope not) and the IPO will leave them beholden to shareholders.

If the leadership doesn’t bend it might get replaced. It’s annoying. I think Claude is atm the best AI assistant, by far.

[fwipsy]

Anthropic is a public benefit corporation. This protects them from legal pressure from shareholders. Doesn't really help with market pressure/value drift though.

[freejazz]

Yeah, and that's why they got of rid of their commitment to safety so they can stay cutting edge?

[trinsic2]

Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. (Im pretty sure this is a Stoic axiom).

[JumpCrisscross]

> every engineer in the bay area has a way of framing the business they work for as a benign force for good

This isn't remotely true in my experience. The senior folks I know at Meta, for example, pretty much concede they're ersatz drug dealers.

[bombcar]

It should perhaps be generalized as "employees usually match the general consensus of their peer-group". Before everyone considered Meta to be ersatz drug dealers, they'd report that they feel what everyone feels.

Google was "do no evil" until they had to choose between that and making the money. The culture has to be not only professed but tested.

[surajrmal]

Depending on what part of Google you work for, you can absolutely feel good about what you do. The vast majority of employees don't work on ads or adjacent areas. I've never seen another company actually care for non profit related externalities so much. People talk about it like it's the same as Haliburton or Oracle and that's not true.

[bombcar]

The snide response is "of COURSE you can care about non-profit related externalities when your giant evil ad business is bringing in absolute dump loads of cash".

And there's something true there; few companies are Snidely Whiplash evil (maybe the lawnmower but even that is just what it is) - and having large amounts of cash affords you options in many areas.

[solenoid0937]

TBH I have worked at multiple FAANG and I don't know anyone other than maybe new grads that actually drank the koolaid.

Certainly most of us know we are just in it for the money, and the soul-grinding profit machine will continue to grind souls for profit regardless of what we want.

So that's why it is surprising to me when my (fairly senior) grizzled ex-FAANG friends, that share the same view, start waxing poetic about Anthropic being different and genuine. I think "maybe it is" and decide to interview. IDK, I guess some part of me wants to believe that nice things can exist.

[rapnie]

Indeed. The bad behavior is emergent, where most individual intentions are good. Good story, bad outcome.

[Bolwin]

I find it bizarre even the public image of Anthropic is seen as ethical after the Department of War debacle, in which they themselves admitted they had basically no qualms with their tech being used for war and slaughter at all except two very very thin lines, namely mass surveillance of American citizens and fully automated weaponry with their current models.

It only showed they were marginally more ethical than OpenAI and XAI which isn't saying much.

[fwipsy]

Anthropic has two principles they're willing to stand behind, even when it costs them. That's not a lot, but OpenAI only has one principle: look out for number one.

[freejazz]

Those are?

[surajrmal]

The idea that it's not okay to arm the military is a position of privilege. The ethical issues are around how the military chooses to use its abilities, not around giving them the tools to do their jobs. We're talking about folks who are willing to give their lives up for others. If you're not going to serve yourself you should at least be willing to help them live. This has nothing to do with whether or not you support the political uses of the military. If world war 3 breaks out and you are forced to serve, you may find yourself feeling differently.

[ethbr1]

Yes and... that's a position of privilege that anyone in the position should ethically take.

It's unfair to sweep provision of methods to the military under a "respect the service" catch-all justification.

Two things can simultaneously be true: (1) individuals serving in the military are making sacrifices (in terms of pay, family life, personal safety) that deserve respect and (2) the military as a political institution will amorally deploy whatever capabilities it has access to, to achieve political aims.

There's a reason the US stopped offensive chemical, biological warfare, and tactical nuclear device research and production -- effective capabilities will be used if they exist.

[ahepp]

With respect to the weapons programs, I'm not a historian, but I was not under the impression that the US stopped development of these weapons unilaterally or out of good will. My understanding is that it was due to a mixture of not perceiving a need or use for the capabilities, along with formal or informal international cooperation eliminating the need for deterrence.

Just a couple of thoughts since it seems like the next issues in this space are rapidly arriving or already here.

[ethbr1]

As far as I've read the literature from the 60s and 70s, tactical nukes were eventually eliminated in order to assuage western Europe's concerns that large portions of their countries would be turned into irradiated wastelands for decades / centuries if war erupted between the US and USSR.

It was also the product of perceived overmatch on both sides -- the Soviets believed they had superior mass of armored formations (and they did), while the US and allies believed they had technological supremacy (and they did). Ergo, neither needed tactical nukes.

It didn't hurt that it helped both in the eyes of the then vehemently anti-nuclear European movements.

Offensive bio and chemical weapon limitation is a more nuanced decision.

In both cases, their primary use was either local mass lethality or terrain denial, neither of which were important in the then-gelling American doctrines of maneuver.

The sole use case they seemed viable for was industry denial (e.g. contaminate a high capital cost industrial center), a task at which strategic sized nuclear weapons were equally adept (and more easily stored). So, if you had to have strategic nuclear weapons for deterrence, and they were capable of the same task, why have fiddly bio and chemical weapons?

But in both cases there was also a constant radiant pressure of scientists and the public campaigning against them, and being unwilling to work on or tolerate them.

Absent that, who knows how history would have turned out? Normalization is a powerful opinion shifter.

[trinsic2]

I'd feel much better about supporting military actions of the people that are becoming part of that system if they exercised some fucking free will and not follow criminals in our government into wars that do not support our people, or our country. We have a serious problem in our government and it being connected in anyway with what is happening in that institution gives me great pause in believing in people of this country. People are stupid to not be fight this government tooth and nail.

[MichaelDickens]

Maybe people inside the company think Anthropic behaves ethically, which says something scary about either their ethical standards or their general awareness, considering how much documented unethical behavior we've seen from Anthropic leadership.[1]

[1] "Unless Its Governance Changes, Anthropic Is Untrustworthy" https://anthropic.ml/

[__alexs]

If you know even the basics of ethics then such claims are clearly nonsense. There is no stable context independent ethical behaviour. This is a great example of the dangers of motivated reasoning.

[DirkH]

I have multiple friends at Anthropic. I can second this. One thing I notice about Anthropic culture is that it is unusually kind.

So much so that I worry they won't be Machiavellian enough to survive. Hope I am wrong.

[trinsic2]

You can still be kind and guard against idiot strong men. Do the right thing, for the right reasons always brings peace. There will always be people that take advantage of that, but if you stay in the right frame, eventually people that matter will see it. And, at the same time, thats not always the case and then I just chalk it up to divine intervention or some larger purpose I am unable to see with my limited mind.

[hollerith]

>the company actually is ethical and safety conscious everywhere

Anthropic is emphatically not safe. None of the AI labs with customers (i.e., excluding a few small nonprofits whose revenue comes from donations) are anything like safe -- because of extinction risk. The famous positive regard that Anthropic employees have for their organization's mission means almost nothing because there have been hundreds of quite destructive cults and political parties whose members believed that theirs is the most ethical and benign organization ever.

The best thing you can say about Anthropic is that if you have to support some AI lab by becoming a customer, investor or employee, it is slightly less dangerous for the world to support Anthropic than OpenAI although IMHO (and I admit I am in a minority on this among extinction-risk activists) it is slightly less dangerous to support Google Deep Mind or Mistral than Anthropic.

All four organizations I mentioned should be shut down tomorrow with their assets returned to shareholders.

The current crop of services provided by the leading AI labs are IMHO positive on net in their effect of people and society, but the leading AI labs are spending a large fraction of the 100s of billions of dollars they've received from investors on creating more powerful models, and they might succeed in their goal of creating models that are much more powerful than the ones they have now, which is when most of the danger would manifest.

The leaders of all of the leading AI labs have the ambition of completely transforming society and the world through AI.

[foolswisdom]

I think cynicism is deserved just from observing Dario's remarks.

[victorevector]

Im curious — how do ethical and safety conscious manifest themselves there? Is it more cultural or process driven? Do you have any examples?

[jarek-foksa]

> the company actually is ethical and safety conscious everywhere

I wonder what Anthropic tries to achieve by spreading such blatant lies with their bot accounts. I'm definitely not buying anything from a company so morally corrupt to smear the competition while claiming to be somehow "ethical". And I'm not talking just about this thread, it's a recurring pattern on Reddit.

[keybored]

Are your friends also credited in Silicon Valley (2014)?