Claude Corps

Join the discussion

• Hacker News
• This is an avenue I think will eventually be tried as a monetisation path: Models that are fully unavailable to company outsiders, you can just hire consultants that will be thin layers to the model. That way the costs that will come are more palatable since you pay for a hired person rather than a product/service.
  by torben-friis
• Surprised how negative most of the comments are.

  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…

  by chaseadam17
• Claude Corps, Forward Deployed Engineers, Strategic Token Reserves… what’s with all these military inspired naming conventions in AI? We’re just typing softly on keyboards…
  by deadbabe
• I did not have AI missionaries on my bingo card this year.
  by Isaackoz
• 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)

  by himata4113
• This seems like one way to saddle nonprofits with functional, but potentially very expensive systems, set up by someone who helps them for a year then disappears and leaves them with no expertise to do long-term cost control or functionality improvements.
  by 827a
• Taken verbatim from Anthropic’s Economic Policy Framework (https://www.anthropic.com/policy-on-the-ai-exponential/epf):

  > 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)

  by pandoro
• > CodePath, an Anthropic nonprofit partner and America’s largest provider of collegiate computer science education, will act as the fellows’ official employer of record and lead programming during the fellowship.

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

  by htrp