An AI company will put 5% of its shares towards the public good
An AI company will put 5% of its shares towards the public good. My question is not whether that is enough. It is who decides.
On 18 October Anthropic (the company behind Claude) announced a Public Benefit Fund:
・5% of its shares go into an LLC it wholly owns, subject to stockholder approval
・For every 50% rise in the company's value, the board may add another 2%
・The money can go to non-profits or directly to "specific populations". Its example is AI's impact on the labour market (not only people AI puts out of work)
Reuters puts the 5% at about $75bn to $100bn, based on IPO valuations. Anthropic gave no figure.
I thought of Section 106. In UK planning, what a developer pays the community, and where it goes, is negotiated with the local planning authority and written into a legally binding agreement. It is not the developer's call alone. Who picks Anthropic's recipients, and how, comes "in the coming months". Elon Musk, on X: "I recommend giving the shares directly to the public."
Who picks Anthropic's recipients, and how, comes "in the coming months".
Sources: Anthropic, Reuters
https://www.anthropic.com/news/public-benefit-fund
https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/anthropic-commits-5-stake-to-new-public-benefit-fund-musk-argues-for-direct-share-donations-to-kids-4958151
Setting money aside early for problems your own product may cause: responsibility, or insurance bought in advance? And who should decide where it goes? Tell me what you think in the comments 👇
Want to use AI yourself? Class 0, the first lesson of my AI course, is free (60 minutes, built around your work):
https://anzonwong.com/teaching-booking/book.html?new=1&src=fb-w43-tue
