[lebovic]

> If you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself.

Is there something that happened which you don't think would have come to pass with a standard PBC/C-Corp (without the LTBT)? I'm trying to think of one, but nothing is coming to mind.

I think the structure attracted many people to Anthropic (e.g. an RSP that could only be overridden by the LTBT), but I'm not sure it has demonstrated a practical impact.

As an aside, I think a lot about this problem too! But the answers that don't reduce to something like "the people, and the people to whom they give power" seem to break down when I look closely.

[skybrian]

Do you think their dispute with the Department of Defense would have gone the same way? We didn't see that at OpenAI or Google.

(Although it does remind me a bit of Google pulling out of China back in the day.)

[nostrademons]

I was at Google when it pulled out of China. GP's post reminds me a lot of early Google - it wasn't evil because there were people in high places, who were critical to its operations, who cared deeply about doing the right thing, and as a result other people who cared about doing the right thing felt like they had cover, and people who were willing to do the wrong thing to hit a short-term number found that they were marginalized. It changed slowly, one departure at a time, as the wrong people got into positions of power and started providing cover to people willing to do the wrong thing. A lot of it also had to do with declining market power: when Google was universally on top, they felt like they could do the right thing without serious negative consequences, but when they were fighting for control of a market, they felt they had to make compromises lest some other firm (being honest: Facebook) would end up in power and do the wrong thing anyway.

Unfortunately there doesn't really seem to be a cure for institutional decay. Once unethical people get in power, they hire other unethical people, and then you're just stuck in Game of Thrones. You have to go quit and found another company, and single-mindedly keep all those people away, kinda like Anthropic did when they left OpenAI.

[takinola]

> A lot of it also had to do with declining market power: when Google was universally on top, they felt like they could do the right thing without serious negative consequences, but when they were fighting for control of a market, they felt they had to make compromises lest some other firm (being honest: Facebook) would end up in power and do the wrong thing anyway.

I would argue it's not a real value if you are not willing to lose something in order to hold on to it. It is admirable to want to do the right thing when you can get away with doing the wrong thing. It is only a true value if you are willing to do the right thing when you cannot get away with doing the right thing.

[csallen]

> I would argue it's not a real value if you are not willing to lose something in order to hold on to it. It is admirable to want to do the right thing when you can get away with doing the wrong thing. It is only a true value if you are willing to do the right thing when you cannot get away with doing the right thing.

I don't think it's that simple.

For example, let's say your desire is to minimize harm in Area X. While you're on top and in control of Area X, then you can do that easily enough. Suddenly a competitor comes whose values show they're willing to do lots of harm to Area X. And if they beat you in the capitalistic marketplace and gain more control, they'll be able to do lots of harm. In order to beat them, you may have to do a little bit of harm to Area X, which goes against your values. But in doing so, you retain control, and prevent even greater harm to Area X. Is that not a "real" value?

Would it be a "real" value to staunchly refuse to do a little harm to Area X, even if you know that this will result in greater harm in the long run?

This is why I distrust simple ideologies. The world is not simple.

[zoogeny]

Your logic doesn't hold up well to simple escalation logic.

Company A founds itself on doing 0 harm to Area X. Competitor B shows up and starts finding success doing 10 harm to Area X, so Company A makes a "moral" decision: If we do 9 harm to Area X, we are preventing 1 entire harm. Isn't that real value? then Company C shows up and starts finding success doing 100 harm to Area X, so Company A changes it's moral stance to "unless we do 99 harm to Area X ..."

I know an old lady who swallowed a fly kind of logic going on here.

[SauntSolaire]

I mean, your proposed logic seems to be quite consistent from a basic game theory perspective. Defecting in a prisoners dilemma and races to the bottom are both well observed phenomena.

[z3t4]

Sometimes being evil will make you win - but only what money can buy.

[tmoertel]

> It is only a true value if you are willing to do the right thing when you cannot get away with doing the right thing.

In reality, neither corporate nor personal values are binary, all-or-none propositions. They are more like springs that push you in the right direction. But if something pulls hard enough in the wrong direction, a spring can be overpowered.

[eries]

I don't know, man. There seem to be enough exceptions in the world to make me at least curious about whether this is really true. For what it's worth, the story of Google and "Don't Be Evil" is in the book.

[lebovic]

Yeah, I lean towards the structure not being the cause of the outcome here (i.e. if you rotated the governance structure of Anthropic and OpenAI, I think the decisions at each would likely stay the same).

If they made that decision and it destroyed revenue, I could see an alternate timeline where a standard C-Corp + board with non-founder control may have ousted leadership. But that wasn't the situation for OpenAI or Google either, and their leadership still made a different decision.

[eries]

I just like to ask one little question: Who chose the structure in the first place? It's kind of a chicken and egg situation.

[lebovic]

Sure, but their question was whether different structure/governance would have changed that decision.