So your job is to be an FDE to sell Claude into non-profits.... but without ever actually working for Anthropic.

> We are not seeking job displacement. We are working to prevent or minimize it. Some amount of displacement, though we cannot say how much, may be an intrinsic consequence of the technology, and our responsibility is to prepare for it and respond to it. That is what this framework is for.

> Whatever happens, we are on the side of people. We are trying to solve these problems. We take no satisfaction in contributing to them, and we are not working to make them more likely.

The cognitive dissonance/doublespeak/hypocrisy (pick one) is absolutely insane.

They are concurrently:

1. creating and marketing products that are explicitly trying to automate, if not entire professions, at least big parts of them

2. edicting grand policy plans to limit the impact of massive job displacement that their products might cause

3. directly funding and coordinating missionary-type activities ("it's for a greater cause") to evangelize and propagate said products in areas of the economy that are usually underfunded and where job security is already quite bad (non-profits, NGOs)

-- 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)

A lot of nonprofits could benefit from someone helping them implement AI and most are 1) competent enough to ensure the fellow hands off their projects before they leave, and 2) to decide if it’s worth continuing to pay for Claude or not.

It’s great the fellows are paid so they are at least somewhat accountable vs volunteers who are often unreliable.

All that said, I bet 80% of what these fellows end up doing is automating fundraising emails…

I enjoyed Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle very much, so I've been slowly reading my way through his earlier works, and while his first novel is not as entertaining, it's surprisingly relevant today. There's Vonnegut's prescience about the impact of technology on society, of course, but even the description of a corporate retreat in the book, that he wrote with almost 75 years ago, hits too close to home.

Suppose a fellow at say, Brave, is confronted with a graduate who tells them they can't get a job because no one hires juniors anymore - there is AI for that now. What is the fellow supposed to say then? "I can't help you either, but I can show you how you can build a kickass CV with Claude"?

From what I've gathered,, one thing the higher education system is good at is using GenAI to automate personal labor :)

All non-profits need to do is demand model-agnostic deliverables, insist on handoff documentation, and budget for switching costs before the year ends.

But is it also a play on Philantropic?

alright

Yeah.