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."

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."

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."

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."

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.

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."

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.

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.

"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, 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.