The most interesting part of this announcement is the timing. GS is leading Anthropic's IPO, what motivated them to announce this a few weeks before trading starts?
In an honest, well-functioning org, those are decisions made by completely different groups that do not (and should not) report to each other. It's actually kind of depressing that we (and I include myself in that) assume otherwise by default.
I have bad news: most large corporations are successful because they know how to make money. Often, the internal operations, are disappointingly bad, just not bad enough to kill the corp fast.
Source: I've worked in and with many successful organizations, and worked at one place with proper internal processes, so I know what's possible
I have observed that also. Though I'm still not sure whether: 1) there are some small pockets where important decisions are made, innovation happens and the needle is moved, and dysfunction I see is just justified bloat of the company 2) it is the entire corporation like that but it somehow works at the end.
The way I would describe large companies is similar to that joke "Mandatory scheduled fun events" just with innovation. Most large organizations cannot innovate, instead they execute well. Look at all the major large organizations, they primarily distinguish themselves on execution, not innovation. A startup that's hobbled together by passionate soft drink makers (or whatever) aren't gonna come close to full business efficiency of Coke Inc. The manufacturing capacity, distribution channels, the logistics, the brand management and awareness, the brand integration and cross promotion, and other things that come from economy of scale. The rigid structure is not a place for innovation to grow.
>I have bad news: most large corporations are successful because they know how to make money.
Who is they? Do you have any idea what its like working at an org the size of GS, that you actually think these two completely different departments discussed the matter with each other?
I'm no longer in that industry, but as I recall there are actually rules imposing independence from investment banking and research arms, for example. Dates back to the Dot Com era where research analysts were touting IPOs for the investment banking division.
Really? You think executives at GS waste their time debating where software should be installed on trading desk computers? They have entire departments dedicated to handling those issues...
ANT was expected to be the largest IPO ever, it may still raise more money than SpaceX, so this is an incredibly consequential deal for GS.
Restricting Ant's primary revenue driver across a broad swath of GS weeks before trading would trigger immediate leadership review. What organizational background and level of experience are you extrapolating?
I think that if this wasn't sanctioned by someone at the top then there would be a round of public hanging, drawings and quarterings in the IT department.
What is the Investment Bank version of "flogging round the fleet"?
> In an honest, well-functioning org, those are decisions made by completely different groups that do not (and should not) report to each other.
I don't agree at all. Different groups should be supporting each other and the overall bottom line instead of their parochial, narrow self-interests - the latter is a poorly functioning org.
If by group A delaying its $100M cost-cutting, group B can add $1B to the bottom line, it would be a corporate and group management failure for group A not to cooperate.
Well functioning by what metrics? To make money? No doubt Goldman sachs does that. But making money often has the incentive of ignoring ethics .. which is what this thread was about. Would they ignore ethics to make more money?
So here, would they synchronize announcing big things in relation to the hottest and most risky investment there is right now?
"what motivated them to announce this a few weeks before trading starts?"
Also what’s your point? Goldman Sachs shouldn’t pull Claude Code because there’s no point in trying in this world and we should all give up on everything?
This wasn't announced, it was an internal leak reported by Bloomberg. Perhaps they should have known it would leak, but there doesn't seem to be any grand strategy.
At a large bank like this, the people responsible for cybersecurity have a completely separate reporting chain and incentives than the ibanking side. If there was a security risk identified, it'd be completely inappropriate to wait a few weeks.
Large banks are far more conservative about these risks than the media portrays. Reputation and regulation are huge, if not existential, risks, and the senior management treats it this way.
Tired of this kind of discussion here. It's so insubstantial. Do you have an actual point to make? I'm sure everyone here is aware that an investment bank the size of GS has been involved in scandal.
Goldman wants to lead the IPO, and have a successful IPO, because Anthropic and Anthropics investors will give Goldman more business if it does that. However, if Anthropic is overvaluing itself then Goldman may not be filling the book on the offer. This story may drive down the value that investors give to Goldman when it does its research, enabling a lower price on the IPO which will then generate more institutional interest and make the IPO a success.
This! Any LLM provider that monitors chat/api history for ‘abuse’ towards the model is considering using user data for training.
An Effective Altruism ethos provides moral/ethical cover for trampling individual privacy and property rights. Consider their recent decision to provide services for military projects.
As others have pointed out, Claude was trained using data expressly forbidden for commercial reuse.
The only feedback Anthropic will heed is financial and the impact must be large enough to destroy their investors willingness to cover the losses. This type of financial feedback can come from three places: termination of a large fraction of their b2b contracts, software devs organizing a persistent mass migration to an open source model for software development. Neither of these are likely to happen in the next 3 months. Finally, a mass filing of data deletion requests from California and EU residents and corporations that repeats every week.
These are extraordinary claims for a rapidly evolving field with a huge breadth of intended uses and technologies.
Here are a few questions that should be part of an evaluation of the Parachute platform to pressure test the claims made on the website and this post:
1) How many Parachute customers have passed regulatory audits by CMS, OCR, CLIA/CLAP, and the FDA?
2) What high quality peer-reviewed scientific evidence supports the claims of increased safety and detection of hallucinations and bias?
3) What liability does Parachute assume during production deployment? What are the SLAs?
4) How many years of regulatory experience does the team have with HIPPA, ISO, CFR, FDA, CMS, and state medical board compliance?
This is a good question. Parachute is not a certification body so we do not help you pass audits. Instead we help with internal decision-making surrounding the implementation of AI tools. We also help hospitals keep track of why decisions we made and who made them to produce to regulators and litigators in the future. Parachute does not assume any liability during production deployment.
I canceled my Windsurf subscription. I had/have no interested in supporting Cognition/Devin; the recent comments by Scott Wu to the Windsurf team was the motivation I needed to move to zed/claude code.
If you're a current Windsurf customer, I hope you consider an alternative product and migrate quickly.
Ditto.
I've spent a few hours with Kilo Code over last few days. It seems to have something solid to work with. Zed feels really nice, but I haven't quite found the entry angle for working with my stuff just yet.
Can you provide a single high quality (randomized) study demonstrating GLP1 therapeutics are 'incredibly detrimental to [your] longevity and quality of life'?
Consider the type of confounding that occurs in studies of people losing a lot of lean mass: cachexia, restriction to bed, famine.
Traditional weight loss methods have not shown the magnitude of survival benefits wrt cardiovascular disease, joint pain, diabetic complications. Exercise is wonderful, but as a public health intervention it is not sufficient.
If anyone looks at the totality of the high quality GLP1 clinical evidence and concludes these drugs are going to cause a net reduction in longevity and quality of life, then they should step back and assess their process for evaluating information.
Exercise is a public health intervention that actually works in improving health. It may not work to create actual weight loss, but it does improve things like blood pressure regardless.
Yeah, the IRB isn't even within spitting distance of a HIPAA issue. They're entirely different things, handled by different regulatory agencies, and administered in different parts of a hospital (if a hospital even has an IRB, as most don't, since most aren't research institutions), overseeing different activities.
If someone called my hospital's IRB to "school them" on a HIPAA violation, I can't even imagine what their response would be. I mean, I'm sure it would be polite, but it's not like they'd start hand-holding the lady on how to file complaints - they wouldn't know, themselves. It's only one step up from calling the cafeteria services people.
Sorry, should have been more clear. The case where she called the IRB was where the office completely messed up the consent process -- told her to disregard the first page of the consent, which was included in the package and included items that were directly relevant, and also didn't include materials referenced in the consent. Note, this was in a research/teaching hospital, where the consent notice includes consent for students to participate in the procedure, so that's why she called the IRB -- and they were very interested to hear what she had to say ...
Hospitals take compliance issues very seriously; the incentives are skewed highly in one direction.
Consider it an extension of "HR is there to protect the company, not you." Compliance is there to protect the hospital, not the individual employee that may have erred.
As long as they make a good faith effort to act on the complaint, they themselves are protected from liability. Whereas if they don't act, they open themselves up to enormous liability, on behalf of a replaceable peon - I mean, on behalf of a highly respected staff member.
There are two prominent examples of antitrust/monopoly problems in the U.S. real estate market: MLS and dual agency. The MLS seems to be complicit in forcing home sellers into paying higher buyer agent commissions: https://therealdeal.com/national/2019/05/22/doj-demands-core...
I agree that being forced into 6% commission regardless of the effort it took to buy/sell your house is a problem, I don't think that extra few percent is what's pricing people out of buying a home.
The effective cost implications are more likely 10-12% at each sale. A seller will try to increase the price of the house to cover these commissions.
Your comment is focused on buying a home, but there can be dramatic consequences for home owners, the stakeholders forced into paying both agents.
When a seller has little equity and a poor housing market, exiting a primary mortgage can be financially impossible. A recent survey found a large fraction of the US can't handle a surprise $400 expense. So the follow-on effects of these commissions are not trivial for a large swath of the country.
I also agree that depending on location (looking at you SF metro) there are much bigger factors, e.g. constrained supply, inflating home prices.
reply