Giving this an “insightful” because I appreciate the documentation of what is indeed a surprisingly close relationship with EA. But also a disagree because it seems reasonable to be skittish around the subject (“AI Safety” broadly defined is the relevant focus, adding more would just set-off an unnecessary news media firestorm).
Plus, I’m not convinced that Anthropic has actually engaged in outright deception or obfuscation. This seems like a single slightly odd sentence by Daniela, nothing else.
But also a disagree because it seems reasonable to be skittish around the subject (“AI Safety” broadly defined is the relevant focus, adding more would just set-off an unnecessary news media firestorm).
Doesn’t this amount to an argument that the leaders at Anthropic should say whatever they think sounds good, rather than what’s true?
This seems like a single slightly odd sentence by Daniela, nothing else.
I think you have a good point there. When people are speaking off the cuff (like in an interview setting) people often misspeak or express themselves unclearly. If I saw multiple instances of Daniela Amodei saying similar things, then it would look a lot more like just straight-up dishonesty. As is, it’s hard to tell.
Now that you’ve raised this point, the post of this title feels dishonest. The title “Anthropic is not being consistently candid about their connection to EA” suggests a pattern. The post does not show a pattern.
For what it’s worth “not consistently candid” is definitely a joke about the OpenAI board saying that Sam altman was “not consistently candid” with them rather than a statement of context.
Oh, you’re right, I forgot about that. But then the body of the post makes a non-joking claim that agrees with the joke:
It appears that Anthropic has made a communications decision to distance itself from the EA community, likely because of negative associations the EA brand has in some circles.
So, is the title a joke or not? Maybe it’s a joke-y reference but the point it’s trying to make is actually sincere and not a joke.
Extrapolating from these somewhat ambiguous, somewhat open to interpretation off the cuff comments to “a communications decision” just seems like jumping to conclusions.
And that’s disappointing because I was so excited to be mad!
No; it’s best if individuals are truthful. But presidents of companies aren’t just individuals, does that mean they should lie? Still no. It just means that they should be limited with who and what they associate with. I mentioned an ” unnecessary news media firestorm”, but the issue is much broader. Anthropic is a private corporation, its fidelity is to its shareholders. “Public Benefit” corporation aside, it is a far different entity than any EA non-profit. I’m not an expert, but I think that history shows that it is almost always a bad idea for private companies to claim allegiance to anything but the most anodyne social goals. It’s bad for the company and bad for the espoused social goals or movement. I’m very much pro-cause neutrality in EA; the idea that a charity might all the sudden realize it’s not effective enough, choose to shut down and divert all resources elsewhere, awesome! Private companies can’t do this. Even a little bit of doing this is antithetical to the incentive structure they face.
No. Just deflect, which admittedly, is difficult to do, but CEOs do it all the time. Ideally she should have been clear about her own personal relationship with EA, but then moved on. Insofar as she was (or seemed) dishonest here, it didn’t help; the wired article is proof of that. It’s hard to pin-point a clear line not to cross, but something like “this is an EA company” would be one, as would “we are guided by the values of the EA movement”.
Sort of. But claiming that you are an EA organization is at least 80% of what makes you one in the eyes of the public, as well as much of self-identification among employees. Ex: There’s a big difference between a company that happens to be full of Mormons and a company that is full of Mormons that calls itself “a Mormon company”.
True. Yeah I’m sketching out a story about the background mechanics here that I think is plausible enough to partly under-cut the premise of this post; but the real bottom line is that this is just a single out-of-context sentence. Mountains out of mole hills.
Giving this an “insightful” because I appreciate the documentation of what is indeed a surprisingly close relationship with EA. But also a disagree because it seems reasonable to be skittish around the subject (“AI Safety” broadly defined is the relevant focus, adding more would just set-off an unnecessary news media firestorm).
Plus, I’m not convinced that Anthropic has actually engaged in outright deception or obfuscation. This seems like a single slightly odd sentence by Daniela, nothing else.
Doesn’t this amount to an argument that the leaders at Anthropic should say whatever they think sounds good, rather than what’s true?
I think you have a good point there. When people are speaking off the cuff (like in an interview setting) people often misspeak or express themselves unclearly. If I saw multiple instances of Daniela Amodei saying similar things, then it would look a lot more like just straight-up dishonesty. As is, it’s hard to tell.
Now that you’ve raised this point, the post of this title feels dishonest. The title “Anthropic is not being consistently candid about their connection to EA” suggests a pattern. The post does not show a pattern.
For what it’s worth “not consistently candid” is definitely a joke about the OpenAI board saying that Sam altman was “not consistently candid” with them rather than a statement of context.
Oh, you’re right, I forgot about that. But then the body of the post makes a non-joking claim that agrees with the joke:
So, is the title a joke or not? Maybe it’s a joke-y reference but the point it’s trying to make is actually sincere and not a joke.
Extrapolating from these somewhat ambiguous, somewhat open to interpretation off the cuff comments to “a communications decision” just seems like jumping to conclusions.
And that’s disappointing because I was so excited to be mad!
I think the phrasing is probably a joke but the substance is the same as the post
No; it’s best if individuals are truthful. But presidents of companies aren’t just individuals, does that mean they should lie? Still no. It just means that they should be limited with who and what they associate with. I mentioned an ” unnecessary news media firestorm”, but the issue is much broader. Anthropic is a private corporation, its fidelity is to its shareholders. “Public Benefit” corporation aside, it is a far different entity than any EA non-profit. I’m not an expert, but I think that history shows that it is almost always a bad idea for private companies to claim allegiance to anything but the most anodyne social goals. It’s bad for the company and bad for the espoused social goals or movement. I’m very much pro-cause neutrality in EA; the idea that a charity might all the sudden realize it’s not effective enough, choose to shut down and divert all resources elsewhere, awesome! Private companies can’t do this. Even a little bit of doing this is antithetical to the incentive structure they face.
As for your second response, I agree 100%.
Are you saying if she told the truth it would risk causing a media firestorm? If so, isn’t what you’re saying an endorsement of dishonesty?
If not, then what was the point of what you said originally?
No. Just deflect, which admittedly, is difficult to do, but CEOs do it all the time. Ideally she should have been clear about her own personal relationship with EA, but then moved on. Insofar as she was (or seemed) dishonest here, it didn’t help; the wired article is proof of that.
It’s hard to pin-point a clear line not to cross, but something like “this is an EA company” would be one, as would “we are guided by the values of the EA movement”.
So, you’re advocating not telling the truth but also not lying by avoiding the question.
Sort of. But claiming that you are an EA organization is at least 80% of what makes you one in the eyes of the public, as well as much of self-identification among employees. Ex: There’s a big difference between a company that happens to be full of Mormons and a company that is full of Mormons that calls itself “a Mormon company”.
The Wired article doesn’t say what exactly the question was. I doubt the question was “Is Anthropic an effective altruist company?”.
True. Yeah I’m sketching out a story about the background mechanics here that I think is plausible enough to partly under-cut the premise of this post; but the real bottom line is that this is just a single out-of-context sentence. Mountains out of mole hills.