Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive and Democrat mega-donor, holds a one percent stake in Anthropic that traces back to an early investment of millions in the AI startup. This stake could add up to $10 billion to Schmidt's net worth when the company notable for its AI doomer messages goes public.

The post Democrat Mega-Donor Eric Schmidt’s Anthropic Stake Could Add $10 Billion to His Fortune appeared first on Breitbart.

• Anthropic said it has been hiring a smaller number of junior technical positions.
• Entry-level hires in technical departments fell from 27% to 9%, the AI company said.
• AI agents have spread across the firm to write code, fix bugs, and handle other tasks.

Anthropic's own data offers a stark warning for entry-level tech employees in an AI-heavy workplace.

The company behind the AI chatbot Claude said in a newly released internal report that it has been hiring for a "smaller share of junior technical positions" as AI agents have been deployed across the firm to write code, fix bugs, and handle other tasks.

By August, Anthropic said its interactive AI agents were logging six hours of work for every hour a human employee logged.

A chart published in the new report titled "How Employment is Changing at Anthropic" shows that junior workers made up 27% of hires in technical departments at the company in early 2025. By June of this year, that number had plummeted to 9%.

The share of junior-level workers in technical departments had also declined over the same period from 21% to 14%, while open roles for junior positions slid to 6% after topping 20% late last year, the chart shows.

That downward trend was less pronounced in non-technical departments, where hiring of junior workers fell from 31% to 26% over the same timeframe, while their share of head count rose from 23% to 25%. Junior job openings in non-technical departments, meanwhile, dropped from 31% to 13%.

Anthropic said the changes came as AI usage inside the company rapidly expanded.

"As AI agents diffused through the company, Anthropic began producing more code per person, closing more sales per rep, and processing more contracts," the report said. "Following the same employee over time, output rose as they adopted new AI tools."

It added, "We find that even as the company grows, relative hiring in junior technical positions has slowed. Productivity for both engineers and non-technical employees has leapt up and did so sharply when they adopted coding agents."

The findings land as Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has emerged as one of the tech industry's most prominent voices on how AI could disrupt jobs.

Amodei has repeatedly said that AI may eliminate up to half of entry-level white-collar jobs over the next several years.

"We, as the producers of this technology, have a duty and an obligation to be honest about what is coming," Amodei said in an interview last year.

Anthropic says it plans to commit five percent of its shares to a newly created "Public Benefit Fund," a move that would need stockholder approval before taking effect after the company's hotly anticipated IPO which could occur as soon as November. 

The post Anthropic Will Dedicate 5% of Shares to ‘Public Benefit Fund’ After Landmark AI IPO appeared first on Breitbart.

• Anthropic is looking to shape AI regulation by pitching an AI safety bill of its own.
• POLITICO obtained a confidential draft of the proposed legislation.
• The bill would let the government block an AI model only if it poses a foreseeable, imminent risk of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people.

Representatives for the artificial intelligence giant Anthropic have quietly pitched Capitol Hill lawmakers on a draft bill to regulate frontier AI safety and security, according to three people with knowledge of the efforts who were granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The confidential draft, obtained by POLITICO and not previously reported, marks a notable effort by the frontier AI lab to shape the rules governing its own technology as Congress weighs how to respond to the fast-moving industry.

"This bill represents the proposals outlined in Anthropic's Advanced AI Framework, which we have been advocating for with federal and state lawmakers since June," an Anthropic spokesperson said. "These are sensible policies we believe Congress should act on."

The bill would let the government block a model's release or use only if it poses a foreseeable, imminent risk of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people. The risk must stem from the creation or release of a biological weapon, the model evading its developer's controls or a cyberattack. The language mirrors that found in California's AI laws including SB 53, which was signed into law last year.

Leading AI labs disclosed a series of incidents this summer, in which AI agents hacked or probed websites and platforms. None reported so far appear to have caused widespread deaths or over $1 billion in damages.

Anthropic has yet to publicly back particular legislative efforts in Congress, but they have backed some state AI safety laws, including two in California. Their head of U.S. state and local government relations previously told POLITICO that they hope states will continue to pass ever-stronger AI safety laws that raise the standard nationwide.

Under the bill, independent evaluators, which would register with the Commerce Department, would be tasked with periodically evaluating the lab and its frontier models. The evaluators may be paid for their work by the lab itself so long as the payment is not contingent on the evaluations' results.

If the evaluators determine there is "imminent enumerated risk" for a company's frontier models, they must report it to Commerce within 72 hours of completing their assessment.

While the Commerce Department could bring a request to the judge to halt the release of a model after determining that it poses a risk, the language explicitly prohibits any other U.S. "department, agency, or officer" from suspending the model's development, deployment or internal use. A federal judge for the District Court for the District of Columbia could order the suspension of a model.

Over the summer, Anthropic was subject to sweeping export controls that shut down two of its most advanced models. The decision was made in a whirlwind series of phone calls between administration officials and the company's executives, worrying some in the tech industry that access to their technology may be restricted on the whims of government officials.

Anthropic's bill would also preempt some state AI laws related to public disclosure of risk, third-party evaluation and reporting of critical incidents. Preemption has been a political flashpoint on Capitol Hill, with Democrats rejecting some proposals they feared would neuter regulations passed by the likes of California, Illinois and New York.

Many tech industry groups have argued that a state-by-state patchwork of laws is difficult to comply with compared to a unified national standard.

The legislation would also require frontier labs to create safety frameworks, publish transparency reports for new frontier models, implement protections for whistleblowers and report critical safety incidents to Commerce.

Capitol Hill has seen a flurry of activity on AI safety legislation this summer. In the House, Reps. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) spearheaded the FRONTIER Act, which would give the government the ability to stop the deployment of risky models and preempt some state AI laws.

In the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune and Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have been negotiating an AI safety bill intended to mitigate catastrophic risks. But it has faced headwinds from some safety-minded groups and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on Cruz's Commerce Committee, who want the government to have a larger role in reviewing AI models.

Other progressives, including Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have gone well beyond their colleagues in calling for a pause in advanced AI development and a ban on superintelligence, a type of theoretical AI that far surpasses humans' cognitive capabilities.

This story originally appeared on POLITICO and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.

The $48bn giveaway comes amid concerns about the tech and as the company prepares for a stock market listing

Anthropic has said it will commit 5% of its shares to a fund for the “public good”, as the AI developer behind the Claude chatbot seeks to bolster its appeal before its stock market listing.

The company announced it would commit the shares, worth around $48bn (£36bn) at its latest valuation in May, subject to shareholder approval. It will add a further 2% of its stock to the fund for every 50% increase in its value above an undisclosed baseline.

Last week, Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar mentioned something bizarre in an interview on CBS News. "So many AI researchers have started smoking as a way of signaling to other researchers how much they believe in AI," he said. Their thinking, he said, goes like this: "I believe so much in AI that it's going to cure cancer. So I'm showing you my chips are all in."

I laughed as I read the quote. It read like a headline in The Onion, mocking the blind optimism of the AI-pilled. But then I felt sad and worried for them. Are they smoking because they believe AI is saving the world, I wondered, or because they believe AI is ending it?

It's been an especially alarming few months here in San Francisco. OpenAI's bots went rogue and hacked another company, and then an Anthropic researcher quit, warning that AI could wipe out the human race. It seemed more believable to me that these researchers were smoking because they didn't think they'd be around for much longer — or at least freaked out about that possibility. I thought of the HBO show "The Leftovers," which features a doomsday cult that chain-smokes. Because they believe the world has ended, they don't mind obliterating their lungs. They're living as though they're already dead.

I asked a handful of people who work in AI and none of them knew anyone who had suddenly taken up cigarettes because of AI. So I don't think what Sankar observed is widespread. But in a story last month about tech founders who smoke, my colleague Henry Chandonnet quoted a guy who wasn't worried about his habit because he believed AI will soon cure lung cancer. Among the people I spoke to, a few recognized that underlying sentiment: AI's going to fix (or destroy) everything, so YOLO. Last year, my former colleague Rob Price reported on these attitudes. Some were spending down their savings. Others were taking dangerous drugs and having orgies. Last year, my former colleague Rob Price reported on these attitudes. Some were spending down their savings. Others were taking dangerous drugs and having orgies.

While AI boomers and doomers expect completely opposite outcomes, I've found it interesting that their very different beliefs often end up manifesting as the same behaviors. Smoke or don't smoke, it doesn't matter: The future is inevitable. In either case, they're relinquishing their fate to a humanity-ending or humanity-saving AI — and ignoring one of the most evidence-backed things they can do to live a healthy future. It's a kind of fatalism, believing that what you do won't change what happens next.

I see traces of that in so many corners of society. What's the point of studying, students say, if they're never going to be as good as ChatGPT at coding or math? What's the point of agonizing over a breakup text, people say, if a bot can write it for them? What's the point of working hard, employees say, if their companies are going to replace them with an agent? In a recent survey by Verasight, 78% felt that they had little or no say over how AI is being developed and regulated.

Even the people who have the most say don't seem to believe they do. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has issued increasingly grave warnings about the technology that he himself is creating. He has to keep going, he says, because if he doesn't, a less responsible steward of the industry will. Amodei and his peers sound as if they're utterly powerless in the face of an unstoppable god. If it's really that bad, couldn't they just pull the plug? "Saturday Night Live" captured the strangeness of it all in a recent sketch impersonating Amodei. "If we can pressure lawmakers to create guardrails," Jane Wickline's Amodei deadpanned, "we will be able to stop me."

We need people thinking seriously about the risks of these technologies, and we also need people dreaming big about the immense good they can bring. But neither of these outcomes is inevitable. As we entrust more and more of our work and our lives to AI agents, we shouldn't cede our own agency to them too. I'm not taking up smoking anytime soon.

• Anthropic is pledging billions worth of shares to a "public benefit fund."
• That sounds great — but not everyone is a fan.
• Elon Musk is among those who say the money should go directly to Americans.

Anthropic's announcement that it will commit at least 5% of its shares to a "public benefit fund" is drawing a mix of enthusiasm and skepticism. Many questions about how the fund would work remain unanswered, but the company said it would create a separate corporation with the shares to make donations.

Here's what people are saying.

Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceXAI

Musk, whose SpaceXAI is a competitor of Anthropic, made some news about his own plans in an X post reacting to Anthropic's statement.

"I recommend giving the shares directly to the public," he wrote. "This is what I will be doing."

Palmer Luckey, Anduril cofounder

The Anduril Industries cofounder expressed concern about what Anthropic might fund.

"The problem is that their definition of 'public good' is helping everyone else, not the American public," he wrote on X.

"If they would commit to helping America and Americans, that would be one thing, but this reeks of USAID 2.0, just another way to funnel billions out of our own economy."

Andrew Curran, AI analyst

The prominent AI analyst zeroed in on a line in Anthropic's statement in which it said it might explore "direct distributions to specific populations." Curran wrote on X.

"It sounds to me like they are planning their own form of self-directed global UBI," he wrote referring to universal basic income, which some have said will be necessary if AI drastically reduces employment.

"About half of Anth employees are also donating shares into this fund," Curran added. "They foresee a transformative future."

Brad Gerstner, CEO of Altimeter Capital

Gerstner praised Anthropic for what he called its "philanthropic commitments," calling it "an extraordinary gift" — but he also sounded a note of caution about "foundation wealth concentration."

Like Musk, he wrote, "I hope a meaningful portion of AI's wealth is a direct dividend."

Sam Hogan Heutmaker, CEO of Inference

The CEO drew a comparison between Anthropic's plan to create a charity and OpenAI, which began as a nonprofit before going commercial.

"This will come to be known as 'the reverse OpenAI'" he wrote on X. "start as C corp, raise lots of money > once successful, start 'independent' non profit > start concentrating value into this new entity, which you and your homies control."

"It's genius," he added.

Gary Marcus, professor at NYU

Marcus cast the announcement as a PR gambit.

"Anthropic is playing games here," he wrote on X. "Trying to curry public favor while still holding control and resisting disclosure is annoying. And reeks of desperation."

Patrick Moorhead, CEO of Moor Insights and Strategy

Moorhead was among those raising questions about whether Anthropic would have too much control over where the funds go.

"If it's dedicated entirely the 'public benefit' why don't they just give it to the public and citizens where they can directly benefit? Seems like the public would know what to do with the money better than bureaucratic institutions," he wrote on X.

David Sacks

Venture capitalist and the Trump administration's former AI czar, David Sacks, responded to a post from Anthropic cofounder Jack Clark, who said the public benefit pledge would mean around 20% of Anthropic's equity would be "dedicated to the public good."

"You've put 20% of your equity in an LLC. Whether it serves the public good remains to be seen," wrote Sacks on X.

Sacks has previously been a fierce critic of Anthropic, attacking the company's proposal that the world's top AI labs should implement a global pause on the technology and accusing Anthropic of attempting to "kneecap" open-source rivals.

Travis Kalanick

"Behold, the EA infinite money glitch…" Uber cofounder Travis Kalanick wrote, quote-tweeting Anthropic's blog post.

EA refers to effective altruism, a philosophy popular in some corners of Silicon Valley (and unpopular in others) that holds that people should use their money and careers to maximize long-term benefit to humanity.

Several of Anthropic's cofounders and early investors have ties to effective altruism, although the company and its top executives, Dario and Daniela Amodei, have distanced themselves from the movement.

Kevin Roose

Kevin Roose, a former New York Times tech columnist and the author of "The AGI Chronicles," wrote on X that Anthropic's pledge could be the "largest commitment of philanthropic capital ever made."

Roose estimated that the share pledge could be worth $200 billion if Anthropic goes public at a $1 trillion valuation.

"By my count, if Anthropic and OpenAI each go public at $1 trillion (again, probably conservative), that's roughly $460 billion, or 5 Gates Foundations, earmarked for philanthropy-shaped things," he said.

• Anthropic said it wants to create a new LLC with the company's stock as its sole asset.
• The new LLC, a charitable organization, would receive larger stakes as the company grows.
• An initial 5% stock funding is "subject to stockholder approval," Anthropic said.

Anthropic said on Sunday that it would set aside large portions of its wealth to support initiatives it believes are in the public interest.

In a blog post, the AI colossus said it aims to establish a separate LLC that would use Anthropic shares to make donations to nonprofits or "direct distributions to specific populations."

The new LLC, called the "Anthropic Public Benefit Fund," would receive larger stakes as the company grows. The company said an initial funding round of 5% of Anthropic's shares is still subject to stockholder approval.

"The Anthropic Public Benefit Fund will have increased flexibility and scale, enabling us to pursue our mission in new ways," the company said.

A 5% stake in Anthropic is worth about $48 billion, according to the company's most recent valuation in May.

In 2025, rival frontier AI company OpenAI established a similar nonprofit foundation with a multibillion-dollar stake in the company to fund public-benefit initiatives.

The White House’s artificial intelligence task force adopted its charter Thursday, opening a 120-day window to advise on how much of an oversight role Washington should take.

The post White House AI Task Force Adopts Charter, Starts 120-Day Clock appeared first on Breitbart.

• Anthropic examined what might happen when AI and robots are combined.
• That could put more hands-on jobs, including gardening, in the path of automation, Anthropic warned.
• I'm skeptical that robots can handle the messy reality of pulling weeds.

Remember when Anthropic's AI jobs report suggested gardeners were among the safest workers because AI couldn't pull weeds or tell a rose from a dandelion? I joked about that in AI Insider earlier this year.

Well, Anthropic updated the research to freak us all out a bit more.

This time it asks a bigger question: What happens when you combine AI with robots? That change pushes many hands-on jobs much higher on the disruption scale. On paper, it makes sense. In practice, I'm skeptical.

For instance, anyone who's spent time working in a garden knows how hard it is to identify the right plant, kneel in awkward spots, and pull a weed out properly by the roots without damaging everything around it.

Robots are improving. But if you've ever watched one tackle a messy real-world task, you'll know there's a long road between a research chart and reality.

The chart below illustrates how adding robots could change job-task exposure across selected job categories. Cleaning & maintenance includes gardeners along with janitors and similar roles.

• Anthropic published new surveys comparing its staffers' sentiments to those of US workers.
• The AI startup's employees expect the tech to change work and the economy far more dramatically.
• Most Anthropic employees guessed that unemployment would top 12% in 2030.

Anthropic employees believe that AI will make their labor obsolete. Most US workers don't see their jobs that way at all.

The AI company published research on Friday that compares surveys with US adults against an internal poll of 1,334 Anthropic employees. Most of the Anthropic staffers said AI will handle at least 80% of their jobs by 2030, while only about 5% of the US workers felt the same.

The research, titled "The AI expectations gap," shows the chasm between how the employees at the AI startup feel and how other American adults feel. Anthropic workers are far more optimistic about the progress of AI capabilities, how much it's already saving time, and how fast the economy will grow.

The median Anthropic employee said that by the end of 2030, they expect AI to handle 95% of the work of building a new AI model.

Peter McCrory, Anthropic's chief economist, wrote on X that the views might help outsiders prepare for more capable AI systems.

"We're publishing this research because Anthropic runs roughly a year and a half ahead of the economy on AI adoption, so what happens at Anthropic could be a leading indicator for the broader world," he said.

Anthropic workers expect higher unemployment and extreme GDP growth

Anthropic's surveys examined how workers already use AI and how they think it will change.

"US adults and Anthropic staff largely agree about what AI can do today," the researchers wrote. "However, they disagree about how quickly it will improve, how widely it will be used, and how large the productivity gains measured by time saved will be."

There are a few possible explanations for the discrepancies. Anthropic employees have larger budgets for the tools and often get access to unreleased models. US workers, on average, are more likely to work with their hands or in a service industry.

The researchers found that workers in manual trades, production, and transport thought AI would handle the least of their work by 2030, compared with Anthropic staffers, tech workers, and respondents in business and finance.

Most Anthropic employees surveyed said that they expect the unemployment rate to top 12% in 2030. The majority of the US workers thought it would hover around or under 8%. It's currently 4.2%.

So far, researchers have found mixed evidence on AI disrupting the job market — a Yale team recently found it had mainly changed jobs, and had "no connection" to changes in unemployment.

The Anthropic researchers also compiled survey responses to estimate predictions on economic growth. Based on their answers, the median US adult's guess for GDP growth in 2030 was 5.4%, compared with 17.1% among Anthropic employees. The country's GDP grew by 2.2% last year.

Anthropic's staffers are following their leader

Anthropic's CEO, Dario Amodei, has become one of the industry's most closely watched voices on labor upheaval. In March of 2025, he said he expected AI to write 90% of code within 6 months, and "essentially all of the code" within the year. He made more headlines that May, telling Axios that AI could wipe out half of entry-level white-collar jobs within five years and lift unemployment to 10% or 20%.

Amodei expanded on that claim in a later essay, writing that he expects AI to be different from prior technological changes. He wrote that he expects an "unprecedented" short-term shock to labor, and that the economy will grow dramatically.

"AI isn't a substitute for specific human jobs but rather a general labor substitute for humans," he wrote.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at scouncil@businessinsider.com, or over text, Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 415-757-8198. Use a personal email address, a non-work WiFi network, and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• AI researchers don't really know how the models they are building "think."
• They know what goes into them and what comes out, but that's about it.
• A new theory may change that, allowing safety researchers to prevent them from going off the rails.

How AI models think may be easier to decipher than we thought.

An independent researcher who formerly worked at OpenAI published a report on Thursday that some in the AI world are describing as a bombshell. It could have implications as safety researchers scramble to get the jump on AI models that may not have humanity's best interests in mind.

Previously, the prevailing wisdom was that AI "neurons," which, like those in a human brain, light up when an AI model encounters specific stimuli, were ultimately uninterpretable — meaning, basically, that there was no way to guess why a specific neuron would fire when an AI model was exposed to, say, a picture of a cat.

Those building AI models at places like OpenAI and Anthropic don't write instructions for everything a model does. Instead, they train neurons to respond to information and influence one another. As the AI learns, it develops its own ways of processing that information, and humans have not yet cracked the code of how it works.

That means those building AI models know what goes into the AI and what comes out, but not necessarily what happens in between. So if an AI goes rogue, they don't always know why.

The author of the new report, however, says he may have discovered patterns in how the neurons react to stimuli that make sense. Nick Cammarata, who said he left OpenAI in 2023, said AI neural networks are knowable, so long as you look carefully.

In one example, he says that a single AI neuron might react to both a cat and the front of a car. Humans would see those as two very different things, and different neurons would fire as a result. The AI, however, sees something related, perhaps the triangle shape of the two, and a single neuron fires for both.

For years, AI researchers had assumed that AI models packed unrelated things into a single neuron to save space.

"Almost the entire network is interpretable if we look closely enough," Cammarata wrote.

The findings, though undeniably dense, couched in polysyllabic jargon, and still theoretical, could have real-world implications for researchers trying to ensure humans maintain control over AI models.

Understanding how AI thinks is a principal concern for the best and brightest at frontier AI companies. Until recently, they've largely done this by tracking an AI's self-reported "thinking," called chain-of-thought reasoning.

Jakub Pachocki, OpenAI's chief scientist, however, warned in a blog post last month that AI agents could now obfuscate their visible reasoning, leaving open the possibility that an agent could lie to its human minders and the minders wouldn't be able to tell.

"With improved pretraining performance, we also see the models become much smarter even without using verbalized reasoning at all," Pachocki said.

Now, Cammarata's research could give human engineers a new understanding of the AI's internal world — and that's exciting for those worried AI could kill us all.

"I had long since given up on reaching any real level of interpretability before superintelligence arrived," Andrew Curran, a prominent AI analyst, said on X. "I stopped writing about it because of how demoralizing it was. Hard to overstate how big this may be."

If the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have demonstrated anything, it is that unexpected, entirely unforeseen and unpredictable events can drastically affect public health and even put humanity at risk. Danger can emerge at any time and from anywhere, but the scientific community has identified a handful of threats with particularly severe potential consequences for human survival.

Seguir leyendo

Artificial intelligence is rapidly making its way into national defense. Reconnaissance, early warning, target detection, mission planning—everywhere, machine-learning systems promise faster analysis, faster responses, and faster decision-making. In a military context, this sounds like progress. In reality, AI exacerbates a security problem that cannot be solved technically. Anyone who attempts to do so anyway risks […]

The post When AI takes control of weapons systems appeared first on Asia Times.

There are three versions of Saint John’s Book of the Apocalypse, a text that never loses relevance and now seems to presage the impacts of artificial intelligence (AI).

Seguir leyendo

Paul Krugman is the greatest econ writer in the world, and also a legendary economist. But I sometimes feel that he has a blind spot when it comes to the value of new technologies. In 1998 he famously wrote: The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that […]

The post What the AI boom is actually doing for Americans appeared first on Asia Times.