the LTBT is consulted on RSP policy changes (ultimately approved by the LTBT-controlled board), and they receive Capability Reports and Safeguards Reports before the company moves forward with a model release.
These details are clarifying, thanks! Respect for how LTBT trustees are consistently kept in the loop with reports.
The class T shares held by the LTBT are entitled to appoint a majority of the board ... Again, I trust current leadership, but think it is extremely important that there is a legally and practically binding mechanism to avoid that balance being set increasingly towards shareholders rather than the long-term benefit of humanity ... the LTBT is a backstop to ensure that the company continues to prioritize the mission rather than a day-to-day management group, and I haven’t seen any problems with that.
My main concern is that based on the public information I’ve read, the board is not set up to fire people in case there is some clear lapse of responsibility on “safety”.
Trustees’ main power is to appoint (and remove?) board members. So I suppose that’s how they act as a backstop. They need to appoint board members who provide independent oversight and would fire Dario if that turns out to be necessary. Even if people in the company trust him now.
Not that I’m saying that trustees appointing researchers from the safety community (who are probably in Dario’s network anyway) robustly provides for that. For one, following Anthropic’s RSP is not actually responsible in my view. And I suppose only safety folks who are already mostly for the RSP framework would be appointed as board members.
But it seems better to have such oversight than not.
OpenAI’s board had Helen Toner, someone who acted with integrity in terms of safeguarding OpenAI’s mission when deciding to fire Sam Altman.
Anthropic’s board now has the Amodei siblings and three tech leaders – one brought in after leading an investment round, and the other two brought in particularly for their experience in scaling tech companies. I don’t really know these tech leaders. I only looked into Reed Hastings before, and in his case there is some coverage of his past dealings with others that make me question his integrity.
~ ~ ~ Am I missing anything here? Recognising that you have a much more comprehensive/accurate view of how Anthropic’s governance mechanisms are set up.
These details are clarifying, thanks! Respect for how LTBT trustees are consistently kept in the loop with reports.
My main concern is that based on the public information I’ve read, the board is not set up to fire people in case there is some clear lapse of responsibility on “safety”.
Trustees’ main power is to appoint (and remove?) board members. So I suppose that’s how they act as a backstop. They need to appoint board members who provide independent oversight and would fire Dario if that turns out to be necessary. Even if people in the company trust him now.
Not that I’m saying that trustees appointing researchers from the safety community (who are probably in Dario’s network anyway) robustly provides for that. For one, following Anthropic’s RSP is not actually responsible in my view. And I suppose only safety folks who are already mostly for the RSP framework would be appointed as board members.
But it seems better to have such oversight than not.
OpenAI’s board had Helen Toner, someone who acted with integrity in terms of safeguarding OpenAI’s mission when deciding to fire Sam Altman.
Anthropic’s board now has the Amodei siblings and three tech leaders – one brought in after leading an investment round, and the other two brought in particularly for their experience in scaling tech companies. I don’t really know these tech leaders. I only looked into Reed Hastings before, and in his case there is some coverage of his past dealings with others that make me question his integrity.
~ ~ ~
Am I missing anything here? Recognising that you have a much more comprehensive/accurate view of how Anthropic’s governance mechanisms are set up.