“Empirically when I advocate internally for things that would be commercially costly to Anthropic I don’t notice this weighing on my decisionmaking basically at all, like I’m not sure I’ve literally ever thought about it in that setting?”
With respect, one of the dangers of being a flawed human is the fact that you aren’t aware of every factor that influences your decision making.
I’m not sure that a lack of consciously thinking about financial loss/gain is good empirical evidence that it isn’t affecting your choices.
Yep, I agree that’s a risk, and one that should seem fairly plausible to external readers. (This is why I included other bullet points besides that one.) I’m not sure I can offer something compelling over text that other readers will find convincing, but I do think I’m in a pretty epistemically justified state here even if I don’t think you should think that based on what you know of me.
And TBC, I’m not saying I’m unbiased! I think I am biased in a ton of ways—my social environment, possession of a stable high-status job, not wanting to say something accidentally wrong or hurting people’s feelings, inner ring dynamics of being in the know about things, etc are all ways I think my epistemics face pressure here—but I feel quite sure that “the value of my equity goes down if Anthropic is less commercially successful” contributes a tiny tiny fraction to that state of affairs. You’re well within your rights to not believe me, though.
“Empirically when I advocate internally for things that would be commercially costly to Anthropic I don’t notice this weighing on my decisionmaking basically at all, like I’m not sure I’ve literally ever thought about it in that setting?”
With respect, one of the dangers of being a flawed human is the fact that you aren’t aware of every factor that influences your decision making.
I’m not sure that a lack of consciously thinking about financial loss/gain is good empirical evidence that it isn’t affecting your choices.
Yep, I agree that’s a risk, and one that should seem fairly plausible to external readers. (This is why I included other bullet points besides that one.) I’m not sure I can offer something compelling over text that other readers will find convincing, but I do think I’m in a pretty epistemically justified state here even if I don’t think you should think that based on what you know of me.
And TBC, I’m not saying I’m unbiased! I think I am biased in a ton of ways—my social environment, possession of a stable high-status job, not wanting to say something accidentally wrong or hurting people’s feelings, inner ring dynamics of being in the know about things, etc are all ways I think my epistemics face pressure here—but I feel quite sure that “the value of my equity goes down if Anthropic is less commercially successful” contributes a tiny tiny fraction to that state of affairs. You’re well within your rights to not believe me, though.