My understanding is that the underwriting bank and early investors and institutional investors win first, then founders, after that early employees. Usually offloaded onto the robinhood crowd who excitedly buys in.
According to this analysis of Anthropic's S-1, the founders own about 10% of the company, which at $2T valuation would mean they each make about $28B. The employees collectively own about 15% which results in some staggering math - thousands of employees making ~$100M each, even those hired as recently as last year.
It truly is. And, looked at that way, it is an indictment of the systems that allow this, and yet another piece of incontrovertible evidence that we need to change those systems to bring money, and power, back from the ultra-mega-wealthy to the populace at large.
It just, y'know, isn't a good argument for having everyone work for Anthropic ^_^
In contrast, back when RedHat went public they reached out to everyone on the open source mailing lists, and gave everyone a few shares as thanks for the work they were benefiting from. I got some shares even though all I had done was post some free video format converters.
It's also often also part of the employee retention plan. If you discover your boss has lied to you shortly after an IPO or a merger, then odds are good they were trying to hold onto you by any means necessary until their bonus was paid out.
I've had several people I trusted destroy our relationship this way over the years.
A larger number of people dying from an unrelated cause in another country doesn’t make these deaths insignificant. By that logic, virtually no problem deserves attention because you can always find something that kills more people.
The "trolley problem" is literally never a valid argument for anything because it purports to create an analogy for a real world problem but does so by creating a scenario that cannot exist, hence any argument based on it is nonapplicable to "real" problems.
So you’re being pedantic? Future forecasts and estimates can’t mesh with the trolly problem? If that’s your stance sure, you are correct. I do feel like you missed the whole point of the exercise though, and are hiding behind an absolute that is never achievable.
Look, nobody brings up the trolley problem because they're concerned about what they're going to do when a train car goes out of control.
They use it as a metaphor to attempt to make an argument about a different, actually real, situation. My argument is this is pointless because no real world situation will ever meaningfully resemble the trolley problem.
The correct answer to the trolley problem is STOP THE TROLLEY. "You can't do that!" "Why not?" "because magic" "well how do I know this magic is there?" "more magic!" etc etc.
What do you do if the dragon demands a sacrifice or it attacks the town? You fight the dragon.
The idea that "stop the trolley" or "slay the dragon" is cost-free is a wish. You've merely added a third horn to the dilemma. "Someone brave attempts to jump onto the moving trolley, risking their own neck" might well be the preferred choice; the expected outcome may marginally improve; the shape of the problem remains.
I hope you're arguing out of perversity, not conviction - such is valuable, and i did have to think for a minute. I agree that lateral thinking can be productive.
At no point did I say anything was "cost-free" or even make any reference to cost. It's extremely rare for the cost of an action to be at all relevant to its morality.
> Someone brave attempts to jump onto the moving trolley, risking their own neck
This is a completely different problem. The whole point of the trolley problem is to attempt to justify the sacrifice of the few for the good of the many.
The entire framing is about other people dying, not whether or not you would sacrifice yourself.
