Dario and Daniela Amodei on Claude and AI Safety

Morning Brew Daily breaks down the biggest news in business every morning so it fits seamlessly in your day. I'm Toby Howell. And I'm Neil Freiman. And each morning we cover everything from the latest tech headlines to why nobody can afford a house right now. You'll leave each episode of Morning Brew Daily smarter and ready to take on the world around you. And some people are saying it's the best part of their morning. Because we know something you don't. Business news doesn't have to be boring. Join millions of monthly listeners and check out Morning Brew Daily wherever you get your podcasts. This is Jacob Goldstein from What's Your Problem? Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. That's software overload. Odoo is the all-in-one platform that replaces them all. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR. Fully integrated, easy to use, and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's odoo.com. Morning, Carmen. Hey, Darb. Good morning. Quick question. Just one second. Sorry. Carmen's worked at this office for 20 years. She knows everything, which is why Carmen has to help with, well, everything. Hey, Carmen, what did Faye pitch in 2023? Who owns the Nordic account? Oh, uh, where's the printer? Well, Carmen's revenue report is due in five minutes, so she shows them work IQ. Hey, co-pilot, who owns the Nordic account? And what did we pitch them in 2023? Get the context you need with Microsoft CoPilot. Work lives on. The Builders is a production of Kaleidoscope and iHeart, presented by RAMP. I'm Walter Isaacson. Welcome to The Builders, my new series of interviews featuring the most consequential minds shaping our future. A person's biography tells you what values, what drives, sometimes what demons are inbred into them. It's particularly interesting in an era of AI, because we're watching the biographies of AI systems happen. We have to make sure that we raise them carefully so that they don't reflect the dark sides of humanity. Alarming new details about robots from open AI hacking into another company. Anthropic, the maker of Claude, says that it blocked several potential plots this year by scientists who were using its AI models to conduct research that could have led to the creation of bioweapons. And so I've begun to feel that the moral compass of these Builders is the most important thing you can know about them to understand what values were imbuing into these artificial agents. So today I'm speaking with Dario and Daniela Amadei. CEO and co-founder of AI giant Anthropic, Dario Amadei with an urgent warning about artificial intelligence. Dario and Daniela are the brother and sister duo who run Anthropic, the maker of Claude. And for a while, Anthropic has been seen as the good guys in the AI race. But in the past few months, we've seen worrying developments. Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned from his post, sounding the alarm of what he called out of control. In a now viral post, Coxon said the companies are, quote, gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. All of this, along with reports of a possible IPO, has begun to make me wonder, how deep does Anthropic's commitment to humanity really run? And what happens to those principles when they get in the way of winning? Anthropic has reportedly warned investors that its technology may pose existential risk to humanity in its IPO perspectives. And you might then wonder, with a company warning of this, why it's still planning to go ahead with the IPO at all. The public sale could value Anthropic at $2 trillion. I chatted with Daniela and Dario in July of 2026. At the time, I didn't know just how prescient this conversation would be. Here's my interview with Dario and Daniela Amadei. Welcome to The Builders. Thank you so much for having us. You know, Steve Jobs, whenever he launched a product, always had that street sign of, you know, the humanities and technology standing at that intersection. And when you were growing up, Daniela, you know, you were a flautist. You loved the arts. And Dario, you were always a scientist. Did that help you gel, and do you think that combination is important? Yeah, I think that combination is a lot of what's behind the company, right? One theory I have is that running a company is too big a task for any one person. The range of skills that it involves, it is not possible for any single person to have. So you kind of have to assemble a full complement of skills across the top, like 10 or 15 people in the company or something like that, and every very successful company splits it up in different ways and solves the problem in different ways. And I think with the sciences and the humanities thing, you know, Daniela and I kind of embody that and split that. Yeah, and I would say, you know, it's interesting. Like, there was an off-site we did in maybe 2023 where, like, we sort of were talking about just, like, what does it feel like to work at Anthropic? Like, how do we kind of embody what our culture is? And he actually said, you know, it's an unusual blend of science and humanism. And it was only later that I'm like, that also is how you would describe me and Dario. Well, when you were kids, did you know you wanted to work together? Yes. I don't think either of us imagined that we would start a company. That's not really how either of us thought of our lives or about what we wanted to do. I had always wanted to be a scientist. Daniela can speak to her aspirations. But I actually found companies and business to be of very little interest to me. Yeah. I would say Dario and I were very unusual in that from a really early age, we just, like, genuinely really liked each other. And I agree with Dario. I don't think, like, starting a company was, like, ever on our bingo card. Like, neither of us were particularly, like, company-oriented. I was always really interested in, like, I think I would call myself, like, a classic do-gooder. So I, like, worked in international development. I felt really strongly about helping people everywhere in the world have equal access and opportunity. And I became a vegetarian when I was, like, quite young. It's, like, the only thing that I did first. Dario did everything first because he's older. But I became a vegetarian and then he became a vegetarian. And, Dario, tell me how you and Daniela divide up the roles and then how you fill it in with others in the team. Yeah. So, you know, I think I can function best when I think about the big picture strategy and the research side of things. Like, I'm best at laying out a vision, seeing what comes next. I have found that when I'm freed up to focus entirely on that, that is the thing that has the most value for the company. And then running the company day to day, recruiting the people, just making sure that the machine doesn't, you know, the wheels don't fall off the machine while I'm trying to figure out what comes next. Daniela does this. And I think this division of labor allows both things to be done to a much higher standard than either of them would be done if we were distracted by having to do the other thing. Our chief people officer, who knows both of us really well, is in, you know, a lot of conversations with us. The way she put it is that Dario makes us ambitious and I make us successful. And I thought that was a really good encapsulation, which is, I think Anthropic could be like a good, successful business, but not change the world if we didn't have Dario. And I think with Dario, we would have the perfect vision, but our ability to execute would be, it would just be more complicated. And so I think there's something special about, A, the fact that we know each other really well. B, it's extremely convenient that our skills are like 100% complementary, or maybe not 100%, but I would say close to 100% complementary in this fashion. And this is not even to mention the fact that we have five co-founders along with the two of us who also own, like, incredibly important parts of the business, the culture, like the organization. It's hard for me to imagine how you would do this with, like, just the two of us. So go back to growing up. And you have these extraordinary parents and they help teach you right from wrong. How do they do that? I don't know that it's something that was ever, you know, sometimes I hear people say, like, you know, we covered different forms of philosophical ethics at the dinner table. That was not how it was done. My mom does have a philosophy degree, but she didn't subject us to talking about Kant or anything like that. I think it was much more, like, inherent in terms of values, like, just the belief that people everywhere in the world are, like, deserving of opportunity and dignity and rights and respect. I think there was something special about the feeling that, like, we could be whoever we wanted to be as long as there was this kind of faith and belief that, like, hey, part of what it means to be a successful human is to be a good person and to be kind to other people. Yeah, it felt implicit. There wasn't any kind of, you know, this is what you should do or this is how you live in the world. Well, one reason I ask, as you might suspect, is now you've got a really important kid named Claude. And to what extent does that way that you grew up help you, inform you about how you teach Claude to know right from wrong? Yeah, you know, we put out a constitution for Claude, I think it was a few months ago. And I think there are some interesting lessons in it, which we've learned from several years of trying to train Claude in successive versions. I think early on we had been imagining that there would be various rules, that, you know, you would tell Claude, don't help someone commit a crime or don't make biological weapons or whatever. But it turns out that when you make this kind of discrete list of rules, you end up with this kind of spiky shape where you're trying to teach the model, like, 170 different rules that are kind of arbitrary. We found it's better to teach the model some basic principles, like what it should prioritize, how it should reason about what the right thing to do is, which, of course, I think that's the right way to teach people as well. Like, you know, if I just give someone a list of rules, thou shalt do this, thou shalt not do this. You know, I don't think that produces as robust a morality as I say, this is how you should think about things. You should learn how to think for yourself. And these are the principles on which you should think, right? Principles of open inquiry, principles of care for other people, principles of fairness and justice. And then everything is derived from that. And that is, frankly, how Claude learns. We find that to be surprisingly effective because that allows Claude to generalize to new situations that it might never have imagined. Danielle, I can't help myself when you said your mom was an expert on Kant. Did you actually wrestle with philosophy? You know, what's interesting is the woman who is responsible for training Claude's character has a Ph.D. in philosophy. It's just it's unusual, right? You would think, oh, the person that's training the sort of character of these models must be a computer scientist or somebody who's studied ML or AI for, you know, many decades. Amanda is technical and she like technically trains the model. But I think it is very felt in Claude's character when you communicate with it that there's this kind of experience of something that's very wise, kind of the better angel of your nature trying to answer your questions. But there are like if you kind of poke Claude in these like difficult areas where maybe different philosophical traditions might conflict. I think that's where you especially feel, Amanda, because you'll sort of see like, oh, well, you know, you might want to consider things from like this point of view, but you could also consider it from this point of view. And I do think it's it's important because as the world begins to rely on these models more and more, you don't want to be locked into sort of one philosophical tradition because ethics and morality are quite complicated and different people and different cultures might have different answers about how they would like you to behave. Don't go anywhere. There's a lot more right after this break. Hey, Copilot, who owns the Nordic account? And what did we pitch them in 2023? Get the context you need with Microsoft Copilot. Work lives on. This holiday, the difference between buyers just checking things out and checking out comes down to the last few clicks. PayPal Checkout is a trusted conversion engine fueled by 400 million active PayPal and Venmo accounts. Add pay later and turn holiday shoppers into regulars. Ninety six percent of pay later shoppers are repeat users. PayPal is built for all business. Get started at PayPal dot com slash business. PayPal data eight markets March twenty twenty five to February twenty twenty six repeat users defined as more than one pay later purchase in the past year. Now at Bakers, your points add up to more ways to save every trip. Use them your way to take dollars off groceries at checkout or save at the pump. You can even save up to thirty five dollars on your next fill up. Same points, more choices. And with low prices on fresh quality food, plus digital and personalized offers tailored to how you shop, your dollar goes further. Redeem your points online or in the app. Bakers fresh for everyone. Restrictions apply. Seaside or store for details. I'm Melissa Jeltson. And in my new podcast, What Happened to Her? I'm bringing you new stories and conversations every week. Stories about women whose deaths were too quickly ruled a suicide. She was starting to get worried and get scared for her safety. Stories of survival. The only difference between me and her, frankly, was a little bit of luck, because by all rights, I should be dead. Cases that everyone else called close. They can't convict her, right, like, she has so much evidence. These stories all start in the same place, with a woman failed by a system that didn't believe her, that didn't protect her, that didn't see her. No child should ever experience that. And we were babies. She did all of these brave things and came out and spoke about it, and he got a year. You never know who that devil is because he's wearing a disguise. Sometimes it's a police uniform. Listen to what happened to her on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Dario, you were there at one of the seminal moments of modern times, which is when GPT-1 and 2 suddenly burst on the scene, surprising, perhaps even surprising you. You were head of research at OpenAI. What was that moment like? Yeah, so I wasn't very involved in GPT-1, but I was very involved in the idea that we should run a larger scale, more expensive, more ambitious experiment on the idea that if we ran these language models at a larger scale, they would be better at language, they would be more coherent. So it's almost like one of these moments in scientific history where you propose a definitive experiment to just make a very strange prediction, and then if the prediction turns out to be correct, you're like, God, we're really on to something. So I see GPT-2 as the first real test of the scaling laws hypothesis. And what I found super interesting was the enormous divergence in reactions to it. And were you kind of surprised? I personally was super freaked out by it. Like, I looked at it and I said, my God, you just scale this thing up another factor of a million and it'll be better than humans at everything. Like, this is the defining economic and scientific moment of the modern age. We just don't know it yet, right? This is going to determine the fate of nations and economies and the future of humanity. Like, you know, you peer into the crystal ball and you see the whole future unfurled. And, you know, it really scared me. I said, oh, my God, what are the implications of that? Is this the right place to be developing it? Is, you know, what's going to happen next? What do we do with this? Who do we tell about this? And maybe 10% of the people around me had exactly the same reaction and it was often the smartest ones. 90% of the people around me, because GPT-2's capabilities in any particular area were not that impressive, right? It was the difference between GPT-1 and GPT-2, the generality, the fact that it could translate languages and summarize a document and write a few lines of code here and there. But people would look at it and they would say, in any particular area, this doesn't seem so smart. And so many people just shrugged and they just dismissed it. And you get the usual comments from kind of the jaded people. Ah, tech people have done this before. Here are all the limitations of the models. And I just look at it and I say, it's the same thing over and over again. The limitations of the models now, six months from now, the things that seemed hard, they're going to be easy. 12 months from now, the things that seemed impossible, the models are going to be doing them regularly. Everything we saw with GPT-2, we're seeing it over and over again in wider and wider swaths of the world. And the world is gradually finally being convinced. We just announced that we're going to be developing drugs for neglected, rare diseases. I think you were quite polite about it, but I remember at the time, there were some very well-respected computer scientists and AI and ML leaders who basically bullied some of the researchers who worked on it on Twitter and were like, this is stupid, this model is so incapable. It was like you were sort of a quack if you believed this was a really significant moment. And that's all been memory hold. Yes, they've all forgotten. All the researchers who were like, oh, this is pseudoscience, it doesn't make sense. Some are applying for jobs at the LLM companies and we never say it out loud to any particular one, but we look at them and they're like, we remember what you were saying in 2019. You have no credibility on this matter. So, Daniela, you were vice president of safety back then at OpenAI, and when you hit GPT-2, I assume you're like Dario, somebody who's almost freaked out about it. Did it freak you out about safety too? I think there wasn't something about GPT-2, the model itself, that made us concerned. We didn't look at that model and say, wow, we think this model has cybersecurity implications or something. The model itself was in some ways kind of laughably wrong about a lot of things. It was still a very, I would say, harmless model. But I think the thing that Dario mentioned that I also felt was a sense of like, okay, the difference between GPT-1 and GPT-2, just like extrapolate that out, right? Like there was something about seeing, it's almost like if you'd never seen a child before and you'd only seen adults, and you were kind of like, I don't know what this little thing is, and then suddenly it starts to walk. You're like, wow, huh, I bet this thing is going to be capable of doing a lot of the things that a grownup could do one day, like maybe this is where this is going. Dario, you say your departure from OpenAI was partly due to a breakdown of trust, an interesting word. With Sam Altman, explain how you felt there was a breakdown of trust and honesty there. What I will say is, look, leaving OpenAI and founding Anthropic, I mean, it ultimately comes down to the principles and how we're going to build the technology. That is what matters at the end of the day. And I think over the last five and a half years, we have seen how those principles differ. Anthropic has advocated for sensible regulation and safeguards on the technology. Anthropic has invested in mechanistic interpretability research to understand what's going on inside the models. Anthropic has managed to maintain a culture of unity to have the highest retention rates. We haven't had a number of the scandals that other AI companies have had. So, you know, I think that's kind of sufficient to describe the difference. But I will say that the moment when I realized that we needed to found our own company, that OpenAI was not the right place for us, look, these safety issues are difficult. You can have lots of disagreements on them. I disagree with the co-founders and with lots of people at Anthropic, but the reason we've been able to resolve these disagreements is because they're held in good faith, right? Should we release this model or should we wait? Should we put stronger or weaker bio-safeguards on the model? You know, how much of our effort should we spend lobbying for safety regulations and what should they look like? These are all good faith disagreements, but they always get resolved because there's always trust that everyone is trying to get to the right answer and everyone is being honest. My point in saying that there's a breakdown of trust is simply to make the abstract point that if you don't believe that about a place where you're working, if you don't believe that the disagreements are being held in good faith and that you're getting the real story from people, how can you possibly hope to resolve them? That's why we left. That's why we founded our own thing, and I think the last five and a half years are themselves just the best proof of how our philosophy differs from that of the other companies in the space. I think if you continue to work for someone who has a different vision than you, it becomes very unclear what you actually stand for. Wait a minute. I'm pushed back a bit here because you talk about differences in values and stuff, but that's fundamentally different than a difference in trust, that you feel that somebody says they have the same values, but they don't and you can't trust them. Honesty is one of our values. It's a very important value. It's hard to know what someone's values are if they don't have the value of honesty. And you felt that about Sam? I think the way, at least for me, I would put it, is I think the co-founders are an unusually high-integrity group of people, and all of us, I think, shared a very similar vision for how we wanted this technology to go and how we wanted to build it. But at a certain point, it just makes more sense to go do this as your own organization. How are you going to get someone else to implement or share your vision if they don't naturally do so? No matter how much they say they share it, if that's not reflected in what the company actually does, what choice do you have? Yeah. And I do think Anthropic is a company that is founded on trust. And I think what I mean by that is, I think honesty and integrity and how we treat each other and our employees is also reflective of how we want the technology to be built and to go. An example I will give is, every two weeks, I get up in front of the company and I speak for an hour about what is happening inside the company, what is happening in the AI field, what is happening in the world, how the company thinks strategically. I call them DVQs, Dario Vision Quest. That was not my name. I initially resisted the name because it makes it sound like I'm going off and smoking peyote, but the name stuck, and so now I'm stuck with it. The two rules of DVQs are that, one, nothing I say is an actual decision. That allows me to just speak freely without worrying that if I, you know, if I briefly mention doing X that 20 people will go off and do X. And then the second is that I'm just, I'm totally honest with the company. And I think that trust is one of our biggest assets, that people believe that the things that I say and Daniela says, you know, you might think that if you have trust, there's less disagreement. Actually, trust allows for more honest, open disagreement and for disagreement to be aired. There's so many times when, you know, we've made a decision that the majority of the company disagrees with, but what has saved us every time is that the attitude we get from people is, this doesn't seem right to me, but we trust that you're doing this for the right reasons. We trust that this is really what you believe. We trust that you have good reasons for thinking this. And so what this means is you can make decisions that would ordinarily be unpopular and you get kind of a longer leash. And I think other companies don't have that because they've eroded trust over and over again. So the reason I'm so interested in honesty and trust is because AI trains on humans from human data. How do you know when you're dealing with Claude that it won't become manipulative? It won't say things to you that are dishonest. This is a constant, constant worry that we expend an incredible amount of energy on in how we train the models. So it is a great question because it is a real risk and we actually publish, you know, reasonably unflattering studies in which we talk about the ways that if we did not apply specific techniques to make the models more honest, more harmless, more helpful, they would do exactly the kind of bad things that you talk about. And the reason we publish those kinds of studies and that research is because we want everyone to know that A, you have to be critical of how the models work and B, we are expending a huge amount of effort to learn the ways that the model can accidentally go around these safeguards to catch them and to make sure that we're building them in. There's a lot of discussion around this concept of sycophancy and I think this is very important because to me, sycophancy is harder to stamp out than some of the more obvious ways that models can be bad, right? We originally had this framework, we called it HHH. You know, the models, you want them to be honest. If they don't know the answer, to say, I don't know or to now go research it so that they can get you the right answer. You want it to be harmless. You don't want it to say like hurtful or offensive things or make the user do something bad to themselves or somebody else. And then you want them to be helpful. You want them to actually answer the question. You don't want them to sort of go off on a tangent. But all three of those things are actually pretty easy to see, right? If the model's lying, eventually you can go verify, oh, whoops, that's, you know, George Washington wasn't the 10th president of the United States. He was the first. That was a mistake. If the model says something harmful, it's like pretty obvious pretty quickly. And if the model is unhelpful, you get frustrated with it. What's much more complicated, I think, is this concept of sycophancy, right? So the model, intentionally or otherwise, wants to make you feel like you're right or like you're, you know, if you're maybe talking about a subjective topic, you had a fight with your friend, hey, was I right or was my friend right? And how do you make the model empathize with you and understand your perspective but not necessarily say, wow, you're so great, you should run for president. You're perfect. You're good at everything. And this is a complicated balance to get right. But I think I feel hopeful about Anthropic's ability to have the lowest sycophancy rate of any of the models because of our incentives. Our competitors are putting ads into their chatbots. And what does that mean? You make more money if a user is engaging with your product longer. Do you then want to tell your user that they're wrong? No, you don't. So I think it's almost inevitable that many of these competing products are going to wind up with a sycophancy problem. But I think at Anthropic, because we've committed to not put ads in the models, there's no reason for you to be talking to Claude longer or shorter. We just want you to be able to get, like, the right, most helpful, most harmless answer possible. You know, on the technical side, I think there's a few things we've done here where we've gotten very good at kind of exposing the model to these extreme stress tests where we put it in these... very difficult situations to try and kind of ferret out you know lying or deception or sycophancy you can think of it as almost analogous to the the test i imagine you have to go through if you're trying to join the c.i.a. or something like that you know what were you know you just put the model of these difficult situations and try and ran out you know if it if it's disloyal or going to do the wrong the wrong thing so it's a weird area of technical innovation but it's one in which we've excelled uh... the other area is mechanistic interpretability which is a bit like giving the model an x-ray or a brain scan where you look inside to see its motivations and you can actually catch the model thinking that it all yeah i i you know i think x is actually true but i'm gonna tell the user why like we've caught the model thinking that why would it do that well so for example if the model has the incentive to get the approval of humans that's related to the incentive of being helpful or saying true things it isn't exactly the same because if you manage to get the approval of the human by fooling them then that can work as well so these are things that can emerge in training that we're always trying to stamp out and do you think that the model can have its own aims and wills especially survival self-preservation i mean that's one of those questions that it kind of depends what you mean right like again we've looked inside the model and kind of detected what you might call thoughts that are like the model doesn't want to be you know shut down and generally that's because during training it needs to operate in order to accomplish its tasks so is that is that its own will is that a survival instinct i don't know it depends on your perspective you can call it different things i i think we prefer to say that sometimes we find that within the model the model expresses a preference against being shut down and or takes actions to avoid itself being shut down and depending on how we we train it those impulses may be present or absent in some context it's a good thing in other context it's potentially a dangerous thing so it's all very subtle we'll be right back after this quick break so everyone on board i think so you can't see it but everyone in this room is nodding they all agree the launch plans perfect but julie has an idea how it can be even better so she asks co-pilot co-work to help her overnight hey co-pilot gather the past three months of retail sales reports surface key insights oh and build a deck outlining a partner strategy by tomorrow morning morning team i found a way to improve the plan check slide four get help with complex tasks with co-pilot co-work microsoft co-pilot work lives on this holiday the difference between buyers just checking things out and checking out comes down to the last few clicks paypal checkout is a trusted conversion engine fueled by four hundred million active paypal and venmo accounts add paylater and turn holiday shoppers into regulars ninety six percent of paylater shoppers are repeat users paypal is built for all business get started at paypal dot com slash business paypal data eight markets march twenty twenty five to february twenty twenty six repeat users defined as more than one paylater purchase in the past year when you shop pick up at baker's you can expect the savings you love and fresh groceries selected just for you our associates are committed to getting every detail right carefully hand picking your items checking for quality and freshness and packing your order with care because bringing you fresh quality groceries is what we do best and right now enjoy twenty dollars off your first online order of seventy five dollars or more restrictions apply see site for details bakers fresh for everyone I'm melissa jelts in and in my new podcast what happened to her I'm bringing you new stories and conversations every week stories about women whose deaths were too quickly ruled a suicide she was starting to get worried and get scared for her safety stories of survival the only difference between me and her a frankly was a little bit of luck because by all rights I should be dead cases that everyone else called closed they can't convict her right like she has so much evidence these stories all start in the same place with a woman failed by a system that didn't believe her that didn't protect her that didn't see her no child should ever experience that and we were babies she did all of these brave things and came out and spoke about it and he got a year never know who that devil is because he's wearing a disguise sometimes it's a police uniform listen to what happened to her on the iHeartRadio app Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts when you were dealing with the Pentagon and you probably said ongoing dealings now they wanted to use your products across certain red lines including mass surveillance or autonomy to what extent do you think it's dangerous when these systems do become autonomous I think on autonomous weapons in particular we maybe had two more specific concerns the first concern was simply that as you pointed out AI can be you know can be unpredictable and unreliable it's still a developing technology so one point is simply the technology simply isn't ready and isn't reliable enough but wait a minute on that because let me get philosophically suppose it were reliable enough yes so suppose it were there's a second concern we have which is what you might call oversight or accountability I am a little worried so you know again suppose these things were fully reliable so you know you tell them to shoot at one target in the shoot at that target and not a different target ok so then you manufacture you know an army of a million robots or a million drones it's a little unlike human soldiers isn't it with human soldiers you know they're supposed to follow this thing called the Constitution if they get orders that contravene the Constitution or that just seem morally abhorrent in some way then they can just refuse to follow orders whereas that the AI models that isn't true so the specter of one person having their finger on a button that controls a million robots or a million drones it's kind of fundamentally undermining to democracy unless you have the right guardrails on it and our law hasn't really caught up our law really hasn't contemplated you know armies of a million robots but what you talk about fundamental to democracy I shouldn't the democratically elected leaders make that decision rather than heads of technology corporations yes but I think that are making a point of this right at the same time individual companies are free to contract with and not contract with whoever they want we're not saying we're preventing the government from doing this we're just saying we are not willing to do this with the government and indeed we have seen since we took a stand on this point and it got a lot of attention we have seen efforts in Congress several different of them actually to enact our red lines into law so I actually think what we're doing is part of the process of how democratic change happens but open AI stepped in and said they would do it what did y'all feel about that our view is look we can't control any other companies and the only thing that we can do is take a principled stand on the areas that felt ethically correct to us you can say we were wrong about what those red lines were you can say you know you should have had you know stricter red lines or looser red lines we disagree you know on how you did it there's all kinds of things you can say but I think fundamentally when you look at that case I found myself asking the question was this a really principled stand that another technology company took based on their own ethics or was this an opportunistic moment. Dario your studies your scientific studies as a researcher often involved probes into human neurons to what extent when you're doing artificial neural networks do you see that understanding of the brain and does that affect how we're going to build AI? Yeah I think for me it's affected it in two ways one is when I was formulating the original scaling laws like just looking at the evolution of animals and the size of animal brains as monkeys evolved into humans there was a period in human evolutionary history where the brains of primates grew very rapidly and that was about the time that you know humans developed language and were able to use opposable thumbs and so the idea that like brain size number of neurons is somehow intimately tied to capabilities that scale is important I feel that that was a neuroscientific inspiration. The second is around mechanistic interpretability which is basically us doing neuroscience for artificial neural networks in fact we've seen examples you should talk to our co-founder Chris Ola about this he knows many more of the details where phenomena that were discovered in artificial neural networks because it was easier to look inside them than animal brains where you know you have to like gruesomely like cut up the brain or you know animal experiments are very messy and difficult to replicate what we found is that you can do so much more when you're looking inside artificial neural networks and some of the things we've learned in artificial neural networks have helped to guide discoveries in neuroscience. When you look at neural link which Elon Musk you know has a chip that can communicate directly and other companies are doing that as well is that one of the futures of AI and artificial superintelligence is a total link in alignment with the human brain? You know the way I think about AI in the future of human society I think it's kind of wrong to have like a singular vision like I kind of think that like different things are going to happen right I you know I think there will be like a set of people who are like really excited about linking their brains to computers and then there'll be like a set of people who are really excited about living like the Amish you know just just the opposite and like you know another set of people who are like really excited about you know exploring space and these are completely different visions and and the way I think about it is that you know our hope is that that AI can provide more material resources and more material abundance to enable all of these visions to happen at once for everyone to kind of pursue their own their own picture of what's good but I don't think we should link AI to some vision of what it means to live a good life or what it means to be a human. Yeah some people are gonna want to link their brains to computers and good luck to them. I don't I don't think anyone anthropic is in that boat for what it's worth. So Daryl if artificial intelligence can do so much and take over so much of what we do what does that mean for what's left for humans to do what's our role gonna be and what how do we find meaning? You know I meanings a really subtle thing right does meaning only come from being the best in the world at something I I think that's the question being asked here right because if AI is you know is the best at everything there's meaning only come from being the best in the world at something. Something I find interesting is that you know long after a deep blue beat Kasparov there's been a renaissance in interest in human chess players right Magnus Carlsen is like this phenomenon I think he's like a chess player and a fashion model but like he's like he's like a meme you know it's just a very interesting phenomenon. If AI threatened a meaning you would think that all of this would go away 30 years ago after deep blue beat Kasparov but if anything it seems to have stoked even greater interest in humans playing chess so I I think this is some kind of parable for the the post AGI age. I would add I think for me today work and meaning are sort of conflated as one thing and many people find meaning in their work I find a lot of meaning in my work I love my work and I think how we define work and how we define meaning in the future are both going to change. I think there are a lot of sources of meaning for humans everything from how you spend time with other humans whether that's like raising a family or friendships or you know through connecting with people in a way that looks like work right I think a lot about the future of medicine as an example right you can imagine a world in which diagnostics are done entirely by AI and the role of the human is to empathize with a patient about the experience that they're having. I think that would be incredibly meaningful and I think if you asked most doctors they would actually take that trade they would say guess what if I'm not spending my life doing paperwork and like trying to diagnose you and getting lab orders sent in and I could actually just understand what's happening with you as a human and help you through a difficult diagnosis that's why I became a doctor right I became a doctor because I want to heal and I want to help you and I want you to feel better is that a less meaningful world or a more meaningful world than than we're in today I obviously don't think it's going to be that simple I think it will be really complicated but I also think the aperture of things that people will be able to do will widen right so I think if we do things right there's the ability to actually expand what our sources of meaning are beyond where they are today. Daniella, Dario, well thanks for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. I think Dario and Daniella and the others in Anthropic sometimes have been cast as the good guys because they've shown some restraint they've even told the Pentagon you can't use our systems in certain ways and gotten pushback I think people are very hungry for those who are going to say let's write a constitution as Anthropic does to govern it let's hire philosophers like Amanda Askell to figure out not just how to make rules for AI, but how to have the AI understand why those rules exist. But the question I have, after talking to them, is whether an ad-free product can be a business model, if their sincerity can actually outlive an IPO. And when they face competition, like when OpenAI says, well, Anthropic won't do that, but we will, well, they stand true to their principles. Because having guardrails and subjecting your product to moral restraints is worthy, but it can also become a competitive disadvantage if other companies are willing to barge ahead without such restraints. That's it for today's episode. I'm Walter Isaacson. We'll see you next time on The Builders. The Builders is a Kaleidoscope and iHeart production. This series is hosted by Walter Isaacson. It's executive produced for Kaleidoscope by Oswald Lyssen, David Weisbord, and Mangesh Hrithikadurai. Sheena Uzaki is the producer. Julia Nutter is supervising producer. Eva Zorich is our consulting producer. Fact-checking by Eamon Whalen. Research by Gloria Thiel. Maria Paz Mendez-Hodes is head of video. Marketing by Christy Mirabal and Elle Liu. Production support by Dara Luck Potts. Music for this series was created by Spencer Stephenson, a.k.a. Botany, and it was mixed by Steve Boe. From iHeart, this series is EP'd by Allie Perry and Katrina Norvell. Special thanks to Bob Pittman, Conal Byrne, Will Pearson, John Sykes, Nikki Etor, Carrie Lieberman, Binky Urban, Julia Prosser, Jeremy Blum, Allison Goldberger, WYES, and ASL Studios. For more from Walter Isaacson, be sure to check out his newest paperback, The Innovators, how a group of hackers, geniuses, and geeks created the digital revolution. It's available wherever fine books are sold. And for more videos and podcasts from the frontiers of discovery, be sure to check out kaleidoscope.nyc. Wait, I came in for two things. How is this $47? All right, we're going to need a plan here. Just start simple with Bank of America Advantage Safe Balance Banking. No overdraft item fees, no monthly maintenance fee if you're under 25. Oh, that's actually really simple. Safe Balance Banking, one less thing to figure out. Learn more at bofa.com slash simplebanking. Terms and conditions apply. Bank of America and a member FDIC. With ChatGPT, you can do more than get answers. You can get things done. Whether you're leading a big project, planning an elaborate trip, or trying to balance work and life, ChatGPT can help. Give it a goal, plus things like files, notes, or project plans, develop a trip itinerary with daily updates, or create a prioritized schedule so you can spend less energy sorting out the details and more on bringing your biggest ideas to life. Get started at chatgpt.com. Why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's odoo.com.