401–410 of 716 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not the CEO’s fault - they had to take all that money to keep their org a non-profit. B corps are like recycling programs, a nice logo.
Don't they get tax breaks and more lax operating requirements? I don't think this is just an image thing.
I was wondering if it was because of heavy-handedness of the administration, but apparently: > The policy change is separate and unrelated to Anthropic’s discussions with the Pentagon, according to a source familiar with the matter. Their core argument is that if we have guardrails that others don't, they would be left behind in controlling the technology, and they are the "responsible ones." I honestly can't compreh…
Claude only talks about safety, but never released anything open source.
All this said I’m surprised China actually delivered so many open source alternatives. Which are decent.
Why westerns (which are supposed to be the good guys) didn’t release anything open source to help humanity ? And always claim they don’t release because of safety and then give the unlimited AI to military? Just bullshit.
Let’s all be honest and just say you only care about the money, and whomever pays you take.
They are businesses after all so their goal is to make money. But please don’t claim you want to save the world or help humans. You just want to get rich at others expenses. Which is totally fair. You do a good product and you sell.
Worth checking this post from someone who actually has worked on this change: > I take significant responsibility for this change. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HzKuzrKfaDJvQqmjh/responsibl...
> I generally think it’s bad to create an environment that encourages people to be afraid of making mistakes, afraid of admitting mistakes and reticent to change things that aren’t working "move fast and break things" ?
Public benefit corporations in the AI space have become a farce at this point. They're just regular corporations wearing a different hat, driven by the same money dynamics as any other corp. They have no ability to balance their stated "mission" with their drive for profit. When being "evil" is profitable and not-evil is not, guess which road they'll take...
Public benefit corporations in the AI space have become a farce at this point. They're just regular corporations wearing a different hat, driven by the same money dynamics as any other corp. They have no ability to balance their stated "mission" with their drive for profit. When being "evil" is profitable and not-evil is not, guess which road they'll take...
Worth checking this post from someone who actually has worked on this change: > I take significant responsibility for this change. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HzKuzrKfaDJvQqmjh/responsibl...
Empty words. I would like to know one single meaningful way he will be held responsible for any negative effects.
Public benefit corporations in the AI space have become a farce at this point. They're just regular corporations wearing a different hat, driven by the same money dynamics as any other corp. They have no ability to balance their stated "mission" with their drive for profit. When being "evil" is profitable and not-evil is not, guess which road they'll take...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, now I'm wondering, if the company was chartered with the public benefit in mind, could you not sue if they don't follow through with working in the public interest? If regular corporations are sued for not acting in the interests of shareholders, that would suggest that one could file a suit for this sort of corporate behavior. I'm not even a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV) and public benefit corporations…
I really don’t see it. PBCs are dual purpose entities - under charter, they have a dual purpose of making profit while adding some benefit to society. Profit is easy to define; benefit to society is a lot more difficult to define. That difficulty is reflected at the penalty stage where few jurisdictions have any sort of examination of PBC status. This is what we were all going on about 15 years ago when Maryland was…
Are markets so untamable that the only leverage is to become ultra-rich—and then act philanthropically? Incidentally, concentrated wealth lately looks less like stewardship and more like misanthropy.