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

Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

#51

Post by notnullorvoid »

jefftk wrote: post #32
notnullorvoid wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a decent interview question if such a large portion of compensation did not come from equity. Otherwise it's basically the same as asking how someone would feel if all the sudden they lost 50% or more of their wealth. No one feels okay about that, except maybe the delusional few.

Personally I'd trade 50% of my wealth for a significantly large decrease in the chance that AI gets us all killed.

And you'd be okay with Anthropic being the ones that determine what "significantly large" means?

Re: Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

#52

Post by dgellow »

15155 wrote: post #42
dgellow wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think so, I think Amodei and the early employees do believe what they say. It’s still worth criticizing but I don’t think it’s as simple as „just marketing“. But with the company growing and their insane valuation it’s clear it’s morphing into something else

Talk is cheap. Sam Bankman-Fried was a loudly vocal proponent of Effective Altruism.

If you look at Amodei writing and publishing before Anthropic he was already a true believer, he seems to be ideologically driven. That doesn’t mean it’s good though, I’m very suspicious of Anthropic leadership, and they have pretty much everything they need to develop a cult following, making them dangerous

Re: Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

#53

Post by philipallstar »

owenmarshall wrote: post #43
philipallstar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably you're also greed motivated, because you don't work without benefit.

Earning a livelihood under the constraints of capitalism is hardly the same as hoarding wealth.

> under the constraints of capitalism

What does this mean? Was life better in soviet Russia under Communism, or as a serf in feudal England?

> hoarding wealth

The claim was that they were motivated by greed because they weren't doing things for zero benefit. My challenge was that it's normal to do things for pay and it shouldn't be evidence of being motivated by greed.

Re: Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

#54

Post by cyanydeez »

v9v wrote: post #5
cyanydeez wrote: post #2

"Will you lie to get this job?" Sounds like theyre actively hiring people to train the worst kind of AI

Is it that inconceivable to think that there are people who would be ok with stopping what they're doing when they realize it's harmful?

We've known about global warming for 40 years. Please point to the industry, billionaire and other "people" who are stopping atm?

Re: Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

#55

Post by danaris »

philipallstar wrote: post #53
owenmarshall wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earning a livelihood under the constraints of capitalism is hardly the same as hoarding wealth.

> under the constraints of capitalism What does this mean? Was life better in soviet Russia under Communism, or as a serf in feudal England? > hoarding wealth The claim was that they were motivated by greed because they weren't doing things for zero benefit. My challenge was that it's normal to do things for pay and it shouldn't be evidence of being motivated by greed.

It means we live in a world (especially in the US) where if you aren't earning money, you die within months. Unless you are one of the tiny fraction of people who have enough wealth to live without an earned income—like the heads of all the LLM companies are.

Anyone who has enough wealth to maintain roughly their current standard of living for the rest of their life, and still works in a job with a 6+ figure compensation, is doing it out of greed.

Re: Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

#56

Post by damontal »

philipallstar wrote: post #26
greatgib wrote: post #22

The worst is that I don't believe a single second that Amodei and his crew are not greed motivated in the end. Otherwise his company would be a lot different, more open, more open source, more available to help good cause without benefit. What I see is more the god syndrome of persons that have are in power and have an edge. He can make the conditions so it is important for him to appear as a "divine leader", that is…

Presumably you're also greed motivated, because you don't work without benefit.

How does that diminish the observation about Amodei?

Re: Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

#57

Post by Arubis »

fragmede wrote: post #15
Arubis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is good advice. And if you don’t want to spend too much time reading about EA, imagine for yourself the inner dialogue of someone struggling with the tension between wanting to get really, really rich at any cost, and also really, really wanting other people to cherish them as a heroic-level Good Person, and also (this part is crucial) not have to sully their hands doing any actual hands-on good directly. The id…

Shame that machine didn't manage to erase Epstein's emails.

> EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS STAYS HAPPENED.

> “What kind of philosophy is that?”

> THE ONLY ONE THAT WORKS.

— Thief of Time (Pratchett)

Re: Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

#58

Post by _fat_santa »

TBH I find it very out of touch to ask that kind of a question. Among regular people, everyone works for money. I consider myself a "mission" driven person but that "mission" is 4th of 5th on the list of reasons to join a company. Reason number 1 has always and will always be getting money in the door to support my family.

Re: Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

#59

Post by codazoda »

snapcaster wrote: post #3

I hate these types of questions because they're not just selecting for people dedicated to the mission, they're also selecting for people who are convincing liars

I’m not sure I understand the correct answer. A public company has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. This company opted to become public.

Re: Anthropic candidates face blunt money question

#60

Post by lores »

codazoda wrote: post #59
snapcaster wrote: post #3

I hate these types of questions because they're not just selecting for people dedicated to the mission, they're also selecting for people who are convincing liars

I’m not sure I understand the correct answer. A public company has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. This company opted to become public.

That's a common belief, but that duty is not absolute and does not imply the executive must choose money over morals.
Post reply on HN