Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Anthropic Economic Index

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 238 posts

Re: The Anthropic Economic Index

#101

Post by mostlysimilar »

Eextra953 wrote: post #70
raldi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic is a Public Benefit Corporation whose governance is very different from a typical company in that it doesn’t put shareholder ROI above all else. A majority of its board seats are reserved for people who hold no equity whatsoever and whose explicit mandate is to look out for humanity. https://www.anthropic.com/news/the-long-term-benefit-trust https://time.com/6983420/anthropic-structure-openai-incentiv...

This is why I cancelled my chatgpt subscription and moved to claude. Its kinda silly, but I feel like the products are about equivalent for my use case so I'd rather do business with a company that is acting in good (better?) faith.

That isn't silly, that's one of the only ways to exercise agency under hypercapitalism. I recently cancelled my Amazon Prime membership and got a Costco membership for the same reason. I don't get every product I want, but I'm also okay with that.

Re: The Anthropic Economic Index

#102

Post by erikerikson »

mppm wrote: post #72
raldi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic is a Public Benefit Corporation whose governance is very different from a typical company in that it doesn’t put shareholder ROI above all else. A majority of its board seats are reserved for people who hold no equity whatsoever and whose explicit mandate is to look out for humanity. https://www.anthropic.com/news/the-long-term-benefit-trust https://time.com/6983420/anthropic-structure-openai-incentiv...

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but the practical upshot of this new "Public Benefit Corporation" thing, with or without a trust or non-profit attached, is that you can tell both the public and your investors to fuck off. The reason why all the big AI startups suddenly want to use it is because they can. Normally no sane investor would actually invest in such a structure, but right now the fear that y…

You seem to misunderstand benefit corporations. They remain committed to profit and are just as subject to their board and officers as any other corporation.

There are sane investors that prefer investing in companies that adopt these corporate structures. Based on data, those investors see public benefit corporations as more profitable and resilient. They are able to attract employees and customers that would otherwise not be interested or might be less interested.

Re: The Anthropic Economic Index

#103

Post by neom »

ajmurmann wrote: post #99
neom wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a dev but I thought the issue from a senior dev perspective was AI on AI, not layman on AI?

It seems like you get downvoted, but I think you touch on something important. IMO, right now there are two limitations with AI replacing experienced developers: a) It's not good enough at programming. It sometimes goes down rabbit holes and cannot get out. In other cases it comes up with ridiculously complicated solutions that could be solved much simpler. b) Making assumptions instead of gathering requirements. I s…

That is also what I think will happen, I mean these tools right now are just capturing market share with funding rounds and hacks surly? wrapping any foundational modal and trying to scope it down is always going to suck, but once people start to truly nail just training in only the information required to do that job (I described 03-high-mini or whatever it's called as a dumb finance bro with no depth to my wife) and then couch the task LLMs with orchestration LLMs, surly things improve?

Re: The Anthropic Economic Index

#104

Post by BeetleB »

noah_buddy wrote: post #79
lblume wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that strongly underestimates the impact LLMs, especially reasoning models, have on how code is written today.

Educate me. I find them useful but they are less so when you try to do something novel. To me, it seems like fancy regurgitation with some novel pattern matching but not quite intuition/reasoning per se. At the base of LLM reasoning and knowledge is a whole corpus of reasoning and knowledge. I am not quite convinced that LLMs will breach the confines of that corpus and the logical implications of the data there. No “…

> find them useful but they are less so when you try to do something novel.

Well over 90% of work out there is not novel. It just needs someone to do it.

Re: The Anthropic Economic Index

#105

Post by flessner »

frankfrank13 wrote: post #92

This more or less confirms what I imagine most of us thought, AI is mostly used by engineers, or for engineering tasks. Makes sense, I wonder how much traffic comes from automated tasks (co-pilot, etc). Every time I read a report like this I do wonder if we'll ever see an ROI on LLMs. HUNDREDS of billions of dollars of spend, and 3 years in its still primarily the same crowd using it, and has yet to create a "killer"…

But "AI" tools have more or less seeped into every mainstream product... this is a strong "defensive move" for companies in anticipation of more to come.

We aren't leaving MS Office or Adobe because they already pushed out some minimal innovation. But what about the products you don't even know about? For lawyers, doctors, logistics, sales, marketing, wood workers, handymen? In Europe or Asia?

New product by bringing true innovation could easily push out legacy business by "shiny new thing"(AI) and better UX alone. A lot of software in these areas simply hasn't improved for 10 years - with a great idea and a dedicated team it's a landslide waiting to happen.

Re: The Anthropic Economic Index

#106

Post by 93po »

itkovian_ wrote: post #46

Incredible how low usage is among lawyers. Does anyone have any intuition on why?

i think they're especially likely to hallucinate when asked to cite sources, as in they're mostly prone to making up sources, and a lot of the work my lawyer friend have asked of chatgpt or claude requires it to cite stuff, and my friend has said it has just made up case law that isn't real. so while it's useful as a launching point and can in fact be helpful and find real case law, you still have to double check every single thing it says with a fine tooth comb, so its productivity impact is much lower than code where you can clearly see whether the output works immediately

Re: The Anthropic Economic Index

#107

Post by laidoffamazon »

brap wrote: post #13

Seems like Anthropic has too much money on their hands and are looking for ways to spend it. It’s surprising to see lean AI startups accumulate fat so quickly. Usually this sort of wheel spinning is reserved for large corporations. And it’s not just them. To me this trend screams “valuations are too high”, and maybe hints at “progress might start to stagnate soon”.

I would argue this is within their overall objective. It’s not like Stripe creating a publisher (??)

Re: The Anthropic Economic Index

#108

Post by tzury »

frankfrank13 wrote: post #92

This more or less confirms what I imagine most of us thought, AI is mostly used by engineers, or for engineering tasks. Makes sense, I wonder how much traffic comes from automated tasks (co-pilot, etc). Every time I read a report like this I do wonder if we'll ever see an ROI on LLMs. HUNDREDS of billions of dollars of spend, and 3 years in its still primarily the same crowd using it, and has yet to create a "killer"…

Claude is indeed far more familiar amongst software engineers.

Google Gemini integration into their docs/sheets/slides and Gmail perhaps will show different demographics in a few months, and that is yet before we heard from OpenAI.

Re: The Anthropic Economic Index

#109

Post by azinman2 »

I'd love to see this analysis done for ChatGPT, which has a much bigger 'consumer' marketshare.

I'm also very wary of their analysis method, given classifiers-gonna-classify. We already see it in their example of someone asking why their game is crashing and it buckets them into Computer & Mathematical occupation. I'm guessing the original question was not that of a game developer but rather a game player, so can you really call this an occupational task? Sure it's in that domain, I guess, but in a completely different context. If I'm asking a question about how to clean my dish washer, that's hardly in repairman or industrial occupations.

Still, it's cool they're doing this.

Re: The Anthropic Economic Index

#110

Post by erikerikson »

noah_buddy wrote: post #41
brap wrote: post #13

Seems like Anthropic has too much money on their hands and are looking for ways to spend it. It’s surprising to see lean AI startups accumulate fat so quickly. Usually this sort of wheel spinning is reserved for large corporations. And it’s not just them. To me this trend screams “valuations are too high”, and maybe hints at “progress might start to stagnate soon”.

I am inclined to agree. If you’re at the precipice of automating or transforming knowledge work and the value for being the first is nearly infinite (due to “flywheel effects”), why would you dedicate any energy to studying the impact of AI on jobs directly? The thesis is everything changes. I think AI in its current iteration is going to settle into being like a slightly worse version of Wikipedia morphed with a sli…

Because that research helps you understand your market and where the value generation is. This can expose where to better invest.
Post reply on HN