[pandoro]

Taken verbatim from Anthropic’s Economic Policy Framework (https://www.anthropic.com/policy-on-the-ai-exponential/epf):

> We are not seeking job displacement. We are working to prevent or minimize it. Some amount of displacement, though we cannot say how much, may be an intrinsic consequence of the technology, and our responsibility is to prepare for it and respond to it. That is what this framework is for.

> Whatever happens, we are on the side of people. We are trying to solve these problems. We take no satisfaction in contributing to them, and we are not working to make them more likely.

The cognitive dissonance/doublespeak/hypocrisy (pick one) is absolutely insane.

They are concurrently:

1. creating and marketing products that are explicitly trying to automate, if not entire professions, at least big parts of them

2. edicting grand policy plans to limit the impact of massive job displacement that their products might cause

3. directly funding and coordinating missionary-type activities ("it's for a greater cause") to evangelize and propagate said products in areas of the economy that are usually underfunded and where job security is already quite bad (non-profits, NGOs)

[ipdashc]

So what do you want them to do, then? Because I don't like it either, but they're right about their core tenet, which is that if they don't do it, someone else is going to. Even if we ignore the obvious other player in OpenAI, there's now dozens of labs in a handful of countries, the cat is thoroughly out of the bag.

Is it annoying? Yeah. Is it preachy and hypocritical? Yeah. And I've yet to hear anyone suggest something better.

[anon373839]

> And I've yet to hear anyone suggest something better.

While I reject their basic premise and think it is more marketing garbage, the answer sure as shit isn’t to try to monopolize the technology so that Anthropic can extract maximum rents from it.

[tpdly]

Right. Five years ago the idea was you needed the capitalism to fund compute/training. Now, its clear that open weight models could be a public good. If my PC takes my job I'm still empowered and can still capture that value, so if Anthropic were pursing that end it wouldn't seem so hypocritical.

[alfiedotwtf]

> if they don't do it, someone else is going to

If I don’t rob my neighbour, someone else is going to do it

[ipdashc]

No, not really?

[basisword]

Keeping building models and tools. Sending out missionaries to speed along the process of job displacement is an unnecessary side quest.

[pandoro]

Bingo!

[pandoro]

Continue building useful models, tooling and products, market them to the people who could benefit and be realistic about their strength and weaknesses. Drop the messaging about job displacement, "transformative/dangerous AI", "significant disruptions" and "unprecedented abundance". They are the ones pushing and funding this narrative; just look at the phrasing in this announcement. And it's percolating down everywhere in the general public leading to AI psychosis.

They are proposing solutions to a hypothetical problem they are actively trying to manifest into reality to get more capital and funding.

That's what hypocritical about it. Not the development of the technology nor the effort to lobby for more regulations and policies.

The general discourse around AI could be much more sensible and pragmatic and lead to a more balanced, healthy rollout of the technology in society. But of course this means forfeiting at least part of the massive injection of capital in those companies and the ecosystem in the short-term.

[torginus]

I don't understand this at a high level. Anthropic is going to go public, which means they are liable to act in the best interest of shareholders, so they cannot leave money on the table, much less do selfless handouts.

Yet at the same time, they are a public benefit corporation, and I'm not quite sure what that means? Is that a separate legal entity from the for-profit arm?

[FinnKuhn]

Them being a public benefit cooperation means that Anthropic is legally required to consider both shareholder interests and the broader public good. At least that is how they explain it: https://www.anthropic.com/news/the-long-term-benefit-trust

There is also a separate legal entity (Anthropic Long-Term Benefit Trust) that owns some shares and has special powers, but shareholders can change that so I wouldn't trust the trust too much.

[gwbas1c]

Hey, think critically about where you are on the internet. You're on a message board run by YCombinator, who's stated goal is to teach people to run startups. Startups are inherently disruptive. When one business disrupts another, people lose their jobs.

Companies going out of business, either because of disruption, or because they ran themselves poorly, or other reasons, is part of the normal business cycle. Otherwise, we'd end up doing things like making digital cameras illegal because the people who worked in film labs lost their jobs. (Which is absurd!)

---

I don't see any cognitive dissonance in what you quote. Some people will lose jobs to AI. Anthropic wants to train people who lose jobs to AI.

[pandoro]

I see your point, but in this case we are not talking about disruption at the scale of a product category, vertical, or even an entire industry. AI companies are trying to disrupt entire sectors of the economy at the same time: knowledge work/white collar jobs, creative work (design, photo, video, ...), medical professions, etc.

They are recognizing themselves in their economic policy framework that the lowest level of unemployment potentially caused would be 5% (they also mention 10% and "unprecedented levels of unemployment").

I don't think there is a precedent for this claim. It's hard to take the "we're a force for good for humanity" message seriously in this context.

[b112]

AI companies are trying to disrupt entire sectors of the economy at the same time

Talk to news companies, which whether newspapers, magazines, radio or TV, are basically either literally gone, or a shadow of their former selves. The best way to compare this, as you say is to even larger constructs, to entire sectors of the economy.

Because you can harken this to desktop computers, or to the Internet. Sector after sector of people replaced, industries gone. Just the sheer amount of newsprint, recycled or not, which is now no longer manufactured affected an enormous amount of jobs. The entire forest industry, to sawmill, to shipping + printing and all the parts and maintenance and delivery and even the newstands which are basically now gone. Good for the environment or not, that's massive change.

I agree AI will do the very same. But it's not even really happening that much faster. We're 3 years in. It will take 10 to 20 years for it to play out.

But... back in 2008, would you have said the Internet was "bad" for humanity? No, you wouldn't. Back then, it was all about connecting people, it was about empowering people in totalitarian regimes, so they could connect and speak out. It was about old controls slipping, about people being able to speak directly to one another. Back then, 99.999% of people thought "awesome!".

And when I talk to the average Joe about AI today? I hear the same thing. Awesome!

The Internet has put countless people out of work. So has the computer. So has electricity. And machines. People have always complained. But if you're going to label AI companies as "They took my job!", then you'd better do the same for all those other industries. Otherwise?

It's a bit hypocritical.

[pandoro]

I was not criticizing the technology in itself but the messaging and marketing around it. I agree with most of your points except perhaps the general sentiment outside of tech about AI. Most people I've talked to admire the technology but are genuinely scared or angry about the second-order effect of it on society. And I think, in part, it's because of the messaging, marketing and general psychosis about the technology that those companies are generating.

[flextheruler]

Sure I'll do the same for those other industries. It took generations and many deaths after each industrial revolution to address the harms caused by the technology. People's complaints about economic disruption have been proven to be legitimate and require fighting. This will spill into violence if these criticisms are not taken seriously.

[b112]

And yet unless you're a historian, most people are completely unaware of any of the violence which occurred as a result of prior disruption. Most aren't even aware there were protests, upset in the past, except perhaps due to a song about a miner, John Henry.

These prior points of 'fighting' and 'violence' are so inconsequential, that they don't even impinge upon the historical narrative of most nations. People know about war, civil war, even the hippy protests half a century ago.

And in the end? In every single case? Nothing happened to realistically slow that change. It happened regardless.

One of the issues with such change, is that we live in a world with national borders. This leaves individuals in nations with two choices. Improve efficiency (by replacing humans with more efficient methods), or alternative? Companies with more efficient methods, in other countries, will drive your local companies out of business.

Which means you lose any tax revenue, resource extraction revenue, "head office" revenue, and on and on. And of course, whatever humans are level after the reorg, "management", well those jobs go to that other country too.

Literally if you win in terms of preventing change, you lose.

In the context of all of this, legitimate or not isn't really relevant. And fighting or not is in that same category. Nothing will stop the changes coming. Nothing.

If we were in the same room, you would hear a typically exceptionally optimistic person, speaking in a very sad voice.

[calgoo]

Also, they keep talking about the US like its the only country in the world. They where fine with Claude being used murder and spy as long as it was done to others. And again they are only talking about the US work force. Howany engineers in India will loose their jobs when the ai becomes cheaper? What about other Asian countries with low wage jobs that will be replaced?

[gwbas1c]

> They are recognizing themselves in their economic policy framework that the lowest level of unemployment potentially caused would be 5% (they also mention 10% and "unprecedented levels of unemployment").

Every tech boom I've seen in my life includes people letting their imagination running away and greatly overestimating how adoption will take place. Often adoption is slower, but much more pervasive as younger generations use it when they become adults.

Translation: I believe AI's disruption will be much slower than a lot of people claim it will be; and the change will be (cough) "slow" enough that most people will be able to retire or change their careers before they are materially impacted.

[watwut]

> Startups are inherently disruptive.

They are not, the disruption itself becoming the praiseworthy goal was not there initially. Initially, the rhetoric was about creating new things, building companies and booming economy.

It changed into disruption only later. At some point, disrupting became the praised thing, even if you was in the loss the whole time and did not really produced anything better.

[gwbas1c]

Uh, no; it's worth skimming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma to understand. Innovation always disrupts something else.

> Initially, the rhetoric was about creating new things, building companies and booming economy.

The "new things" always disrupt something else. IE, a mechanized excavator disrupts people who made their living digging ditches.

BTW, were you around Silicon Valley in the 2005-2015 decade? The people making AI were easy to find and were very clearly "about creating new things, building companies and booming economy".

[anon373839]

I actually think this happened around the time Silicon Valley stopped coming up with good ideas.

[rayiner]

> economy that are usually underfunded and where job security is already quite bad (non-profits, NGOs)

If it works, using AI to cut jobs in the non-profit sector would be a good thing. Those jobs are overhead (necessary overhead, but overhead nonetheless) that reduces how much donor money actually makes it to the people it’s supposed to help. If AI can eliminate those jobs, that means a larger share of money that’s donated will actually get used for providing services.

[xg15]

What I never understood: If the goal is not reducing work (in the "effort to perform a task" sense), then why do AI at all?

[signatoremo]

Bad takes.

> edicting grand policy plans to limit the impact of massive job displacement that their products might cause

Your own job, assuming you're in the software industry, is to automate and eliminate people's jobs. How many jobs do you think it has eliminated? Do you feel you are responsible for your products? Is it ethical to do your job without thinking about and discussing its impacts?

My take: being also in the industry, software has created way more jobs, new businesses, new fields than the jobs it has eliminated. Nobody knows how AI will turn out, it being still at the beginning, although it will certainly have big impact and job displacement will be substantial. The hope is that it will be net plus for the society. At least Anthropic is talking about it. I never heard of, for example DeepSeek's position about the impacts of their products.

> directly funding and coordinating missionary-type activities ("it's for a greater cause") to evangelize and propagate said products in areas of the economy that are usually underfunded and where job security is already quite bad (non-profits, NGOs)

If you've volunteered for non-profits, you'd find that many of them are underfunded AND understaffed. Removing burdens on any part of their work, especially areas that aren't directly related to their core services, is hugely beneficial. It's easy to criticize from behind the keyboard.

Unfortunately opinions like yours scratch an itch of the HN crowd. Regardless of objectivity.

[watwut]

> Your own job, assuming you're in the software industry, is to automate and eliminate people's jobs. How many jobs do you think it has eliminated?

Looking at my career, literally none. For real.

> Is it ethical to do your job without thinking about and discussing its impacts?

I am not saving the planet nor people. I am not social worker, doctor nor anyone like that. But, I am not harming them either.

> At least Anthropic is talking about it. I never heard of, for example DeepSeek's position about the impacts of their products.

No, DeepSeek is not trying to create FOMO and fear based sales. DeepSeek is not pushing insulting ads on me and scary ads on my CEO. I dont even think they are all that much more ethical as a business necessarily, but oh my god, they managed to avoid the most off-putting propaganda in places where I see.

[elvis10ten]

> Your own job, assuming you're in the software industry, is to automate and eliminate people's jobs. How many jobs do you think it has eliminated? Do you feel you are responsible for your products?

This is a common trope from the LLM crowd. Places I have worked for as a software engineer have created more jobs (gig economy) or improved the human condition (edtech in emerging markets) or helped people in refugee camps in Kenya stay connected.

Even in questionable companies, I focus on work that makes sure the technology is accessible to any and everyone. I became a programmer because I thought I could help make the world a better place.

> The hope is that it will be net plus for the society.

Unfortunately, hope is not a strategy.

[binary132]

“We are not seeking virtual torture caused by Roko’s Basilisk. We are working to prevent or minimize virtual torture caused by it. Some amount of virtual torture, though we cannot say how much, may be an intrinsic consequence of the technology, and our responsibility is to prepare for it and respond to it. That is what this framework is for.”

[parodysbird]

I never know how earnestly to take any Roko's Basilisk mention

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I always thought she liked bread a bit too much…

[danishanish]

It is such a colossal self-report (when meant).

[binary132]

How is it difficult to make the connection between a thought experiment about a world-eating AI monster, Anthropic marketing their AI as a world-eating monster, and Anthropic accelerating frontier development of their world-eating monster as hard as possible possibly being a little tiny bit icky and cynical when they tell us they’re totally trying to save us from it and stuff, bro?

[TZubiri]

1. creating and marketing products that are explicitly trying to automate, if not entire professions, at least big parts of them

For example?

Most of the products they build seem to be tools rather than replacements.

[fakedang]

I think I'd place less emphasis on the "creating" part and more emphasis on the "marketing" part. If Dario could shut up about how jobs are outdated, that would be nice. His quotes simply give more ammunition to incompetent CEOs trying to cut costs.

It also goes without saying that a certain segment of jobs are simply bullshit jobs that are prone to automation anyways. But without those jobs, you're also cutting off a segment of the population from the economy.

[TZubiri]

But do you have any example of Anthropic products that aim to replace workers?

[fakedang]

It doesn't matter if they can or cannot. Every marketing copy in Anthropic is about replacing workers. Even their job listings state "This position may be replaced by AI within a year.".