Comment by anon373839
12 hours ago
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.
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.
1. This is not “unrelated to AI safety”. The things they seek in the name of AI safety always seem to be aligned with the path that will eliminate competition and give them maximum economic power. Thus, to disentangle what is sincere and what is ulterior, we have to look at the leadership’s character holistically. A ruthlessly unethical and cutthroat corporation that is also seeking unprecedented power doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt when it claims to be doing this for altruistic reasons.
2. You misstated what I wrote. My gripe is not that they have an enterprise sales process. It’s that in negotiations, they say “we’ll drop the safeguards if you agree to spend more”. I haven’t heard of any groundbreaking AI safety research concluding that spending more with Anthropic makes the models safer, but maybe Dario has a new blog post coming.
3. Check your tone.