Anthropic CEO reportedly worried new hires only care about money(finance.yahoo.com) |
Anthropic CEO reportedly worried new hires only care about money(finance.yahoo.com) |
They would know better than us.
Aren't new hires actually expected to need the money more than people who are already rich?
I feel we’re in a timeline in Silicon Valley where there’s little idealism. Employees seek money, and who can blame them when a two-bedroom apartment can easily rent for $4000/mo or more, and when a house is easily $2 million? Leaders seek not only money, but power, and their desires for power have been more blatant in the past year.
Where are the Steve Wozniak and Gary Kildall figures of Silicon Valley these days?
If I could pay bills with happyness and contributions to society through working for a cause, I would, but that's not reality.
Also businesses seem to think we should be Undyingly Loyal to them without any reciprocity. It's wild.
You dont get to kill off coding skills and expertise then expect people to give a f*** about some vision. The vision is that the people you’re hiring now wont have a job in the future. Wtf do you think people are going to do while the clock is ticking?
The paycheck is the thank you for working for your vision. That’s the end of the agreement for any good worker who understands capitalism.
I was always weirded out by the “only in IT for the money” crowd, which is a lot more than the people in it for passion these days it seems, and I might be an extreme case, but consider that while I run an IRC community- I do not write open source software.
This can kill the culture and make the actual people that were shipping unhappy
I work so that I am given food, shelter, entertainment, etc. at some point in the future in exchange for what I have given. Money is just the IOU that records the promise that I will receive those things later. I'm sure there is someone out there who is driven by the desire to collect IOUs and nothing more, but everyone (else but me)?
And when those ideological people start making noises about the ways they disagree with the company, he might miss the more mercenary employees.
Or does it only apply to workers and not people in the lead?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjpYzFtxfjU via https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/gilded-age...
Of course, you had to sell your soul in the process, but particularly for young, single folks just out of university, it was like moving to another better college campus, and if you took full advantage of the perks you could bank another 30-40k of your comp, easy
Perhaps I'm being too generous but I think his comments are about two problems that all rich companies face:
1. How do you maintain momentum in an industry where other companies with deep pockets can tempt your staff away quite easily just by offering more money? If everyone is willing to hop from company to company then it drives wages up (not a bad thing) but also slows progress as a whole industry (a bad thing).
2. How do you keep people when they can just retire and live a life of leisure at any point? It's not about the high wages; it's about employing people who want to see the challenge through to the end.
Ultimately Anthropic has a vast pile of money and can pay people loads to work there. That isn't enough to keep them there though. Paying a lot doesn't get the company to the next milestone if people are happy to just drop it for a better offer or walk away entirely when they feel they have enough.
It's the most first world problem imaginable, but I can see that it would be something that keeps a billionaire CEO up at night.
But it works. Fable is truly amazing, maybe not head and shoulders above the rest but at least a head. Apparently, this neurosis-driven development does attract AI talent.
It suprises me. It shouldn't because the same target demo has been following Eliezer Yudkowsky for decades now but it still does. I just don't have a theory of mind where this is an attractor.
I was laid off last year along with many of my colleagues, some time before the layoff the group director had an impromptu meeting and declared we are working for the good of the world and that we should all feel aligned with this message to serve humanity - "Our mission is to empower every person and every individual organisation on the planet to achieve more".
No your mission is to pump the stock and return value to shareholder. My mission is to help you do it and get paid for my time.
And it turns out more often that not, that to serve humanity is a cookbook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zon...
New hires earn a small fraction of what existing employees make.
Once you reach a certain level of wealth, you don't really need money just to survive—you already have enough.
After that point, money becomes more like a high score you're trying to beat.
Hitting certain revenue targets, reaching specific asset milestones—that kind of thing.
And because of that, they start to believe they're working for some other value, not for money.
But if you talk to them long enough, you always end up at the same conclusion: 'It's still about money, isn't it?'
They'd never admit it, though.
'Because I'm not earning money just to survive—I'm different from you guys.'
They genuinely believe that.
Meanwhile, I'm here thinking that if I don't do work I hate, I'll literally go hungry tomorrow.
Like, really easy
Even amongst the middle class, the people that act like they’re really on a job out of passion have assurances that their downpayment on a house will be covered, or are subsidized by prior military service, or some kind of financial support system they don’t notice is not available to others
The people that are passionate that really only have salary is effectively zero
Founders aren’t educated on this power dynamic and need to be coached
Would I work 9-5 for no money: No! Would I move from a shitty 9-5 to a less shitty one while taking an affordable pay cut: Yes.
But I never buy the "mission" story, or the "we’re a family" line. We’re not a family, and I’m not on a mission.
I’m fine with the word "vision." I’ll be part of your vision if I find it interesting or if I believe in it too. But I’m not on a mission to achieve it.
To me, "mission" implies sacrifice and renunciation - whether that means sacrificing your lifestyle, your time, or your family. I’m not doing that.
If my day job was a side project I wouldn’t work on it at all.
I think it would genuinely be the same for me.