I had to read this twice to understand what they're actually proposing here. The entire premise behind AI is that it can amplify (and in some cases) replace human workers. The blog seems completely backwards to what they're advertising to the enterprise in sales.

-- edit --

After more reading I find this really funny: "Enforcement and regulatory authority with teeth. The government should be able to block or deter the deployment of models that pose a significant risk of catastrophic harm. We must also avoid overly broad or heavy-handed regulatory power. Our framework proposes both a mechanism for blocking dangerous deployments, and concrete safeguards that would prevent that power from being misused. Policymakers could begin with a lighter-touch approach, then adapt this as model capabilities advance and the evaluation ecosystem matures." (They link to https://www.anthropic.com/policy-on-the-ai-exponential in this blog post)

▲

roxolotl 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is what always confuses me about the “keep up or get left behind” crowd. Either these tools are gods in boxes and we’re all going to be replaced or they are actually something that you can gain expertise around. If you can gain expertise around them then sure there’s value in keeping up. But those shouting we’ve all gotta keep up are mostly the same claiming they are building god boxes. It genuinely has to be one or the other. Something isn’t a god box if you have to learn how to best use it.

	▲	skybrian 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Seems like there is skill in knowing what to ask the genie for, no matter how powerful the genie is? How is that not going to be an issue? That said, there are things people had to worry about last year with weaker models that aren't really a problem anymore, so some of the knowledge you get by "keeping up" becomes obsolete and could be skipped by waiting.

▲

lkbm 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The entire premise behind AI is that it can amplify (and in some cases) replace human workers. This seems completely backwards to what they're advertising to the enterprise in sales.

idgi. I'm pretty sure this is also exactly what they've been telling enterprise. This has been the line I've been hearing consistently from them (and everyone else).

▲

imglorp 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> replace human workers

Plenty of charity nonprofits have no/few employees and depend on volunteers for office work. Think animal shelter, food bank, etc. Having a bot perform things like bookkeeping, volunteer coordination, etc would free up volunteers for other things. It wouldn't take many tokens.

If Anthropic wanted some serious PR karma they would include a light usage plan for five or ten years in addition to the engineer to get them started.

▲

himata4113 an hour ago | parent [-]

None of those generally need AI systems though that benefit from an arbitrary input chat box, majority of the work is physical. I might be bias because my experience already included modern systems with machine based OCR.

	▲	signatoremo 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> ... things like bookkeeping, volunteer coordination, etc Are they physical work? Maybe you're saying they aren't important?

▲

clhodapp 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I believe this is an attempt to try out a possible answer to the problem of "If AI makes it non-viable for individual companies to pay junior devs, there will be no junior devs". The posited theory: Maybe the AI companies pay them off what is effectively a tax on the industry as a whole (that they can extract because every company has no choice but to pay their fees). It's pretty dystopian so I hope this isn't the future, but... maybe worth trying as an experiment?

	▲	himata4113 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think I summarized it best: AI companies are taking money out of the developer salary pool and giving it to themselves. I personally don't mind since I don't have to work at a company to make money, but I do feel for people who do.