upvote

points

by EMIRELADERO18 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby usef-18 hours ago|
[-]
To be fair, we're simultaneously mocking anthropic for believing in safety so much and also for them thinking they're the only ones that care enough about it. It's true that no one else seems to care as much. Judging by reactions from everyone, all their safety talk is very bad PR.
reply
upvoteby red_green_yell17 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The criticism isn't that they believe in safety too much. It's that they patently using safety as a red herring with the actual goal of regulating away competition that they know the cannot beat.
reply
upvoteby usef-17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The people involved have been talking about safety long before they had any users or a company.

"Concrete Problems in AI Safety" by Dario and another founder was published 2016, anthropic was founded 2021. Among a bunch of other examples, including other founders.

If safety is seen as a joke now, it was really seen as a joke back then. The reason they keep shooting themselves in the foot with bad PR is because they truly believe in risks.

reply
upvoteby anon37383910 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I’m sorry, but this do-gooder concept doesn’t jibe with their other actions. For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic.

And for safety? Oh yeah, they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments.

reply
upvoteby 3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby senordevnyc6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic.

Completely unrelated to AI safety.

they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments

It seems blindingly obvious to me that you'd want to let trusted organizations use the models defensively, which means without guardrails, and that you'd probably gate that behind some kind of enterprise sales process, for multiple reasons.

Honestly, it just seems like you have an axe to grind and aren't really particularly knowledgeable (or curious) about AI safety.

reply
upvoteby t4356216 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
What they believe now or care about is fundamentally not very relevant: allowing them a monopoly would be a big mistake. Google was supposed to do no evil and it probably started that way but nothing guarantees the future other than having alternatives.
reply