I have so much intended writing on my plate and, unfortunately, little time to do it.

In a nutshell, I think some employees are dedicated EAs who will give a lot of money to causes I deeply care about. Some of them have a binding agreement to donate a portion of their stock (and a match).

I don't trust the founders. There is no legal mechanism I know of that binds them. The base rate of people effectively giving away large sums of wealth, even when they said they would, is shockingly low. They have said nothing EA-related in years apart from distancing themselves.

That said, I agree that Anthropic has a much more EA culture, for whatever that is worth. A lot of their employees are genuine EAs.

Being in San Francisco already warps your view of the world. Being inside Anthropic's doors must do more. I expect them to probably be above-average, typical billionaires, but to have their views on the world be changed by their experiences of the last few years and years to come.

@NickLaing I don't need their money, I'll say what I want. I think too highly of some of their employees to believe that my saying something bad about them that I thought was true would cause them to not listen to things I say or donate money differently than they thought optimal. If I'm wrong, I will happily eat my words.

Lorenzo, thanks for sharing that blog post. I didn't know about that, though I know about many Anthropic founders' previous affiliations with EA.

This is a slight update, but not enough to change my mind in the opposite direction. I already knew that Anthropic founders had a previous relationship to EA, and I don't doubt that they have donated, maybe something on the order of 10% of their income to global health before Anthropic. I know Daniela is married to Holden. I know many Anthropic founders and staff are early signatories to the GWWC pledge. I know there was a group house, and I know that early on, Anthropic founders' reasons for leaving OpenAI were around AI safety. 

That said, my overall point still stands. They have greatly distanced themselves from EA and haven't said anything public about it in years, apart from pretending they didn't know what it was and other strange statements. Most of all, the base rate of sticking to a pledge like this is very low.

$1B is a very low number over 4-5 years, given their wealth and how much it could grow. I'd also be interested in any donations they have made privately in the last few years (remember, they still earn decent salaries and, above all, could liquidate some stock).

I would bet that Dario Amodei makes <$1B in donations before June 2027, self-reported (money has to move, not just say some shiboleth about donating the money in the future) at 50/50 odds. Any 501(c)(3) would count.

Edit: Sorry, one more thing. I know many Anthropic employees and know about the donation match. I think many employees at Anthropic who intend to, and I believe will, donate significant amounts to charity over the next few years. Some have already started. I salute them, believe their intentions, and admire them. I merely think we have to go "bottom up" in counting these donations as opposed to "top-down," where we assess a person and their intentions and what they will give to.

Can you stop with the LLM outputs?

To be clear, the average billionaire talks about the great things they will do with their money constantly. I put relatively low weight on this. I would love to see Anthropic founders do/say something like "each of the 7 founders are selling a combined $1B of their stock and we are keeping none of it. It is all going to these organizations. AI is going to change the world rapidly and we expect a lot more money to flow to the philanthropic sector and we want to get this money out the door since they need time. It is a very small percentage of our stakes and our board has signed off."

I didn't understand what this meant. Can you try to rephrase your point a bit simpler?

I disagree that it is full of this stuff. It does exist, though I don't find the stuff to get surfaced much.

I still think this is weak. This is just typical PR. If they said "we have already put our stock in a DAF. we are committed to getting this money to solve XYZ problems", I would still be skeptical. The base rate is just so low for giving away money and most billionaires actually do talk about their intentions with the money much more than these people. https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-benevolent-artificial-intelligence/

I've written before that I am skeptical that the amount of funding being hypothesized is going to materialize in the quantities people seem to be suggesting/speculating. If I were to summarize that argument, Anthropic founders haven't said a word about philanthropy in >3 years or something AFAIK, and yet we are just assuming they are going to donate 80% of their wealth. Furthermore, the base rates on people saying they are going to donate large sums and then following through is very low.

More importantly, though, it is just very hard to start an organization that can handle large amounts of money effectively until you have money to start with. How are you supposed to get to work until you have money to start with? I don't think this is a chicken-and-egg problem so much as a more blanket "first the money is in the account, then you start".

As an example, right now, there is an urgent need to get funds to stop the Save Our Bacon Act that could preempt any future farmed animal welfare legislation in the leader of the free world, the United States (as in, we cannot do any of our current best and most cost effective ideas if this passes) and we are struggling to get enough money (we are at $10M right now and we are being outspent).

I should note that a few months ago, I also massively front-loaded my donations such that I have very little in liquid assets. Though I have never met Jeff, him and his family have been an inspiration to me for many years.

Thanks Mal. Very informative