Because the decision to leave the company is largely based upon their sudden, newfound financial security. They may give another explanation but the only thing that has actually changed is the identification of bagholders ready to cash them out.

The other issue is that the narrative about safety within these companies is largely a function of the extreme financial incentive.

As an example, Anthropic was an "ai safety" company that has now produced an AI that fails to listen to basic instructions. If you were concerned about safety, would you produce an AI that was unable to follow instructions? You ask a question, it begins executing commands and doing things.

Safety is product to sell to politicians, not consumers.

Not serious.

Yes. To take an extreme case, imagine some rich guy who runs sweatshop gets very rich and retires and becomes activist against it.

You do not in fact see what they are saying. Downvoting me won’t change this.

It’s not a personal attack. And it matters because of what the person you’re replying to already said:

> Easy to suddenly find a moral compass when you, your kids and their kids never have to worry about working for money again.

If someone is in this situation, you can safely ignore their hand-wringing about “safety.”