240
Anthropic was having FOMO with OpenAI getting all the attention so they let Claude out to play (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 58 points 2 months ago* (12 children)

This is why we need personal accountability by C-suites in regards to company misgivings. Yes companies are legally entities but we need like, 50% of the accountability is shared by the C-suites either as a group, or if they have it in writing for a specific thing, by a specific one, the CEO or CTO or whatever.

A person. So there's a very real example of the personal risk to freedom or wealth (the second will hit investors more I presume) if you do this.

Plus I have a feeling that the moment it's their ass on the line, these C-fuckers will, surprisingly, agree to do this shit less often.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    But limited liability allows risk taking to occur.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The liability that is limited is that of the directors. The C-suite are fair game.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Well today I learn. I was under the impression that c-suite are protected but licensed professionals get liability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Nah. With rules like this, no one could ever do anything. I mean the pizza shop on the corner couldn't operate. Who would risk their home (if they're lucky enough to have one) just to not make any money running a restaurant?

    Directors et cetera can be held accountable for criminal negligence with the current rules, it's just that they rarely are, because we have a "captured state" - a government and judicial arm that's terrified of upsetting the corporations that get them elected.

    The solution IMO is disallowing corporate campaign donations, and capping personal donations. Also harsher penalties for the corporations themselves, rather than just "cost of doing business" penalties.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    How do you realistically prevent corporate donors from being a thing when the whole government is compromised and they won't legislate their privileges and bribes away?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    The same way you introduce a law penalising the c-suite: you pretty much can't.

    As I mentioned in my comment, the US has a "captured state" meaning that governments don't represent the interests of people, they represent the interests of corporations and capital.

    That might change temporarily in a time of upheaval - like a revolution level event. Until then, you're cooked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    funny thing is about this comment is something like 50% of resturaunts go bust within the first couple years, yet new people keep opening them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    I thought I kind of implied that?

    There's risk in any business. Being smart and working hard isn't enough. Sometimes you just at get unlucky.

    I know fediverse users hate corporations, and there's a lot to hate, but the idea of individuals protecting themselves from those risks is a critical element of a modern economy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    It's funny, that pizza shop on the corner doesn't benefit from liability protections. It is their ass on the line, which is why people running personally-owned places tend to actually worry about accountability.

    And why, yes, you can easily lose your home and shit if your all-in restaurant place goes tits up. Maybe we need more liability protections for those without enough money, in turn we need less or none who'd have the money to pay for the damages they cause to others livelihood?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    Sorry, with the greatest respect, this is incorrect.

    Here in Australia you can register a company by paying the regulator fees of about $600 AUD (about half a weeks average wage). Thereafter you can start selling pizzas anjoying the limited liability of your corporate structure.

    There are of course exceptions and caveats, notably your landlord will almost certainly ask for a personal guarantee - so you have to pay the lease even if the company goes tits up, but that's mitigated by your ability to assign the lease to another tenant if you wish.

    You might be thinking of publicly listed companies which are listed on the stock exchange. Those are subject to a much higher level of scrutiny and rigorous regulation which is indeed out of reach of "mum and dad" businesses, but that's not a requirement for limited liability.

    Of course, plenty of people don't bother talking to a CPA before starting a business, or a company may be inadvisable for whatever reason, and they end up trading without a corporate trading structure, and have no limited liability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent