His biggest competitor asks people in the interview process if they’d be willing to give up their Anthropic stock for the good of society.
Surely you cannot just close your eyes and say they’re the same. Don’t allow evil to roam free under the guise of merely “imperfection”.
Anthropic asking hypothetical questions in an interview doesn't seem like a very good signal. Everybody knows what they're supposed to say. If they want an unfakeable signal they should make offers with no equity component.
The best anyone can say is, "but mah AI" and can't refute that he is one of the weaseliest, sheistiest characters they've ever seen, but refuse to say anything out of fear of losing their Technojesus come to save them from the fact they never did bother to learn how to invert a binary tree and are just waiting for the world to discover that their imposter syndrome isn't just a psychological anxiety hangup, it's for real.
If a CEO feels that bending the truth, or outright lying, will advance the prime directive – then that is what they will do. Applying adjectives like "honest" or "untrustworthy" to them is a category error. Altman will say whatever benefits OpenAI, full stop. Musk will say whatever benefits his interests, full stop.
CEOs can't be good or bad people in a moral sense, or have the best interests of society at heart. (Despite what they may try to convey.) Better to think of them as automatons carrying out well-defined, and ultimately simple, goals.
But the real work is far more complex than an idealized ivory tower.