> There is no such thing as "ethics" or "morality" when the scale of obligation is that large.

At that scale, ethics and morality should become more important, not discarded

Alternatively, finance at that scale ought not be permitted to exist, because of the moral hazard it represents.

You will find that morals and ethics at that scale are too expensive to maintain.

Then that scale should not be allowed to exist and we should fight aggressively to prevent it

Anthropic is a public benefit corporation which limits liability to shareholders.

Just because they screwed up their billing doesn't mean every ethical commitment they've ever made is bunk.

> Anthropic is a public benefit corporation which limits liability to shareholders

What does this have to do with their ethics? This seems irrelevant unless your understanding of ethics ends at fiduciary duty to investors.

It's the opposite. Parent comment was saying they must be unethical due to their duty to investors. As a public benefit corporation, they can take ethics into account even if it harms shareholders. The extent to which they do so is still up to them, as I understand it, but they aren't forced to be evil as parent was suggesting.

Ah, got you.