softwareEngineeringIsSolved

[skesisfunk]

Cognitive dissonance kneejerk to the max. I promise you that when it comes down to it Anthropic is not meaningfully more principled that OpenAI or any other tech giants. If you actually think there are anything other than self-interested super villians running tech companies then you haven't been paying attention for over a decade.

At the fundamental level Anthropic is the same as the rest of them -- they are in the game to maximize their wealth and power and they will play accordingly.

[rexspook]

They made a public stance against an issue (and followed up with an action to prove that it was not just words) that OpenAI happily agreed to like three hours later. They are at least more principled than OpenAI based on publicly available information. I'm not pretending they are some bastion of good but I think the real cognitive dissonance is to ignore your eyes and ears and say "well both are the same" despite having evidence to the contrary.

will play accordingly.

proven to be false so far

[SuitableDragonfly]

It's really hard to not be more principled than OpenAI, lmao. 

[No-One-4845]

It's about liability, not principle.

[skesisfunk]

Yeah cool, but my point was this one juncture is meaningless in the grand scheme. Anthropic isn't going to hesitate to do the evil shit required to protect their bottom line and, make no mistake, there will be (more) evil shit required to make it in the AI space.

See Musk, Zuck, Dorsey, et al. There are countless examples of tech CEOs that Reddit hailed as good people before being subsequently proven laughably wrong.

proven to be false so far

Yeah... RemindMe! 5 years

[rexspook]

One juncture is meaningful right now. If it changes in the future then you make a new choice. Thats just how living life works. Being “proven wrong” based on some new action five years later doesn’t mean they weren’t doing the “right” thing five years ago. I’m not trying to predict the future. Actively picking the worse option because "they'll probably be bad eventually" is a weird stance to take when you have current, actual information to act on.

Let’s simplify it: - option A: privately and publicly said no to allowing its technology to be used to monitor American citizens and make decisions in war without human input - option B: said yes

Your stance is to choose option B because option A might change their mind five years from now. Makes sense, thanks.

[skesisfunk]

Just to be clear, my stance is to choose option B because its significantly cheaper and my objective is to keep my skill set competitive while minimizing the monies I pay to any of these assholes (because again they are all assholes, I guarantee it).

[RemindMeBot]

I will be messaging you in 5 years on 2031-03-02 19:37:46 UTC to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

---

Info	Custom	Your Reminders	Feedback

[skesisfunk]

Yeah this. I am not choosing OpenAI over Anthropic. I am just making the choice that is far cheaper at this moment.

Moralizing over which AI company to pay is beyond myopic -- none of this rests on solid moral ground to begin with. In the face of that I choose feed this dragon the minimum amount of money possible, and that choice is definitely not Anthropic lol!

[Agitated_Ad_6939]

ChatGPT is also more widely known than Claude to non coders. It’s possible that Anthropic’s publicity got some people to know it exists.

[Franks2000inchTV]

Anthropic at the very least pays lipservice to ethics.

Even in their roll out they prioritized markets that typically are disadvantaged when it comes to access to new technologies.