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

Claude Corps

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: Claude Corps

#101

Post by FinnKuhn »

torginus wrote: post #100
pandoro wrote: post #51

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. > Whate…

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?

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.

Re: Claude Corps

#102

Post by the_other »

skybrian wrote: post #52
roxolotl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what always confuses me about the “keep up or get left behind” crowd. Either these tools are gods in boxes and we’re all going to be replaced or they are actually something that you can gain expertise around. If you can gain expertise around them then sure there’s value in keeping up. But those shouting we’ve all gotta keep up are mostly the same claiming they are building god boxes. It genuinely has to be on…

Seems like there is skill in knowing what to ask the genie for, no matter how powerful the genie is? How is that not going to be an issue? That said, there are things people had to worry about last year with weaker models that aren't really a problem anymore, so some of the knowledge you get by "keeping up" becomes obsolete and could be skipped by waiting.

Context: I vibe code most of my production code, but I come from a long FED career so I'm vibe-coding small things, constantly tweaking, refining prompts, picking work to do that fits with the existing work, etc. So I'm either "doing it wrong" or "being careful". Anyway, that's the perspective I have ATM...

So, it seems to me that there's quite a lot of skill to using these "god boxes": which models, connecting to your systems, hosting the code, running the model, running the code, not breaking your production pipelines, having a production pipeline in the first place.

Sure, the god boxes help with a lot of that. But they don't help setting up the accounts, connecting your code hosting to your production servers. You can't currently just give random people in your org access to an LLM account and have them safely make production changes w/out some engineering knowledge and oversight. In NGOs, especially the small ones, they already outsource all that to 3rd parties so they don't have to worry about it. But with "just the right amount" of in-house knowledge, gear, config (maybe one office computer hooked up with Claude, or a small GHCP account, with GH + hosting configured), it's possible that anyone in the company might be able to add to the company's suite of useful small tools, or add features.

(I also think there's more to "hey claude, make feature X" than we're capturing here, but as I said at the top, I might be doing it wrong.)

Re: Claude Corps

#104

Post by lukashoff »

htrp wrote: post #19

> CodePath, an Anthropic nonprofit partner and America’s largest provider of collegiate computer science education, will act as the fellows’ official employer of record and lead programming during the fellowship. So your job is to be an FDE to sell Claude into non-profits.... but without ever actually working for Anthropic.

This is just a very specific nasty thing they will do to you, but with extra steps (Rick n Morty reference)

Re: Claude Corps

#105

Post by imglorp »

himata4113 wrote: post #65
imglorp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> replace human workers Plenty of charity nonprofits have no/few employees and depend on volunteers for office work. Think animal shelter, food bank, etc. Having a bot perform things like bookkeeping, volunteer coordination, etc would free up volunteers for other things. It wouldn't take many tokens. If Anthropic wanted some serious PR karma they would include a light usage plan for five or ten years in addition to t…

None of those generally need AI systems though that benefit from an arbitrary input chat box, majority of the work is physical. I might be bias because my experience already included modern systems with machine based OCR.

> arbitrary input chat box

Agents connect to your business software. A chat box alone can't "generate the monthly report, run the payroll, and contact these new volunteers."

Re: Claude Corps

#106

Post by pandoro »

ipdashc wrote: post #88
pandoro wrote: post #51

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. > Whate…

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 somet…

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.

Re: Claude Corps

#107

Post by xg15 »

pandoro wrote: post #51

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. > Whate…

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?

Re: Claude Corps

#108

Post by MagicMoonlight »

xg15 wrote: post #107
pandoro wrote: post #51

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. > Whate…

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?

[dead]

Re: Claude Corps

#109

Post by xg15 »

Ignoring the hypocrisy and assuming they mean what they say, I'm missing some concrete proposals what the "fellows" are actually supposed to do in the host organizations.

Suppose a fellow at say, Brave, is confronted with a graduate who tells them they can't get a job because no one hires juniors anymore - there is AI for that now. What is the fellow supposed to say then? "I can't help you either, but I can show you how you can build a kickass CV with Claude"?

Re: Claude Corps

#110

Post by TZubiri »

fakedang wrote: post #81
TZubiri wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

But do you have any example of Anthropic products that aim to replace workers?
Post reply on HN