I basically fail to imagine a scenario where publishing the Trust Agreement is very costly to Anthropic—especially just sharing certain details (like sharing percentages rather than saying “a supermajority”)—except that the details are weak and would make Anthropic look bad.
Anthropic might be worried that the details are strong, and would make Anthropic look vulnerable to similar governance chaos to what happened at OpenAI during the board turnover saga. A large public conversation on this could be bad for Anthropic’s reputation among its investors, team, or other stakeholders, who have concerns other than longterm safety, or might think that Anthropic’s non profit-motivated governance is opaque or bad for whatever other reason. To put this another way: Anthropic is probably reputation-managing, but it might not be their safety reputation that they are trying to manage. It might be their reputation—to potential investors, say—as a reliable actor with predictable decision-making that won’t be upturned at the whims of the trust.
I would expect, though, that Anthropic’s major investors know the details of the governance structure and mechanics.
Maybe. Note that they sometimes brag about how independent the Trust is and how some investors dislike it, e.g. Dario:
Every traditional investor who invests in Anthropic looks at this. Some of them are just like, whatever, you run your company how you want. Some of them are like, oh my god, this body of random people could move Anthropic in a direction that’s totally contrary to shareholder value.
And I’ve never heard someone from Anthropic suggest this.
Anthropic might be worried that the details are strong, and would make Anthropic look vulnerable to similar governance chaos to what happened at OpenAI during the board turnover saga. A large public conversation on this could be bad for Anthropic’s reputation among its investors, team, or other stakeholders, who have concerns other than longterm safety, or might think that Anthropic’s non profit-motivated governance is opaque or bad for whatever other reason. To put this another way: Anthropic is probably reputation-managing, but it might not be their safety reputation that they are trying to manage. It might be their reputation—to potential investors, say—as a reliable actor with predictable decision-making that won’t be upturned at the whims of the trust.
I would expect, though, that Anthropic’s major investors know the details of the governance structure and mechanics.
Maybe. Note that they sometimes brag about how independent the Trust is and how some investors dislike it, e.g. Dario:
And I’ve never heard someone from Anthropic suggest this.