Pod Insights Decoder The tiny team trying to keep AI from destroying everything About this episode Today, I’m talking with Verge senior AI reporter Hayden Field about some of the people responsible for studying AI and deciding in what ways it might… well, ruin the world. Those folks work at Anthropic as part of a group called the societal impacts team, which Hayden just spent time with for a profile she published this week on The Verge.
The team is just nine people out of more than 2,000 who work at Anthropic, and their only job, as the team members themselves say, is to investigate and publish quote "inconvenient truths” about AI. That of course brings up a whole host of problems, the most important of which is whether this team can remain independent, or even exist at all, as it publicizes findings about Anthropic's own products that might be unflattering or even politically fraught.
Links:
It’s their job to keep AI from destroying everything | The Verge
Anthropic details how it measures Claude’s wokeness | The Verge
White House orders tech companies to make AI bigoted again | The Verge
Chaos and lies: Why Sam Altman was booted from OpenAI | The Verge
How Elon Musk Is remaking Grok in his image | NYT
Anthropic tries to defuse White House backlash | Axios
New AI battle: White House vs. Anthropic | Axios
Anthropic will pursue gulf state investments after all | Wired
Subscribe to The Verge to access the ad-free version of Decoder!
Credits:
Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network.
Decoder is produced by Kate Cox and Nick Statt and edited by Ursa Wright. Our editorial director is Kevin McShane.
The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript 7,626 words · 10 speakers
0:00 Speaker 00 You're busy. We know that, so we'll keep this quick. Introducing AMEX Corporate, now featuring the Corporate Cash Back Card. For one annual flat fee, get 1.5% cash back on eligible business purchases, plus intelligent expense management with the unmatched expertise and backing of American Express. Built to simplify, designed to scale. Get started at go.amex/ammexcorporate. Terms and cap apply.
0:30 Speaker 01 Flowing ad budget on metrics that look great till the CFO sees them? That's bull spend, and marketers are calling it out in Dashboard Confessions.
0:40 Speaker 02 I remember telling my boss, "It'll be good for the brand," when leads were slow. Yeah, it wasn't.
0:47 Speaker 01 Cut the bull spend. LinkedIn lets you target by company, job title, and more. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com/campaign. Terms and conditions apply.
1:01 Speaker 03 College football is back. So Hilton called in me, the superstition concierge, to make your fan rituals a reality. Need a room to match your lucky number? We got you. Want to make sure our team doesn't wash your lucky jersey? Oh, that smells lucky. Hilton's unmatched hospitality can keep up with any superstition, even a marching band wake-up call at 5:55 and 55 seconds. Hit it! When you need a team that will do whatever it takes on game day, it matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay.
1:32 Speaker 04 Hello and welcome to Decoder. I'm Neelai Patel, editor in chief of The Verge, and Decoder is my show about big ideas and other problems. Today, I'm talking with The Verge's senior AI reporter Hayden Field about some of the people responsible for studying AI and deciding in what ways it might, well, ruin the world. Those folks work at Anthropic as part of its societal impacts team, and Hayden just spent some time with them for a profile she published this week. It's just nine people out of more than 2,000 who work at Anthropic, and their only job, as the team members themselves say, is to investigate and publish, quote, "inconvenient truths" about how people are using AI tools, what chatbots might be doing to our mental health, and how all of that might be having broader ripple effects on the labor market, the economy, and even our elections.
2:16 Speaker 04 Of course, that kind of work brings with it a whole host of problems. The most important, of course, is whether the societal impacts team can remain independent or even exist at all as it publicizes findings about Anthropic's own products that might be unflattering or politically fraught. And politically fraught is a real thing. There's a lot of pressure on the AI industry in general and Anthropic specifically to fall in line with the Trump administration, which published an executive order in July banning so-called woke AI. If you've been following the tech industry, the outlines of this story will feel familiar. We've seen this most recently with the social media companies and the trust and safety teams responsible for doing content moderation. Meta went through endless cycles of this, where it dedicated resources to solving problems
3:01 Speaker 04 created by its own scale and the unpredictable nature of products like Facebook and Instagram. And then after a while, it seemed like the resources dried up, or Mark Zuckerberg got bored, or more interested in MMA fighting, or just cozying up to Trump. And the products didn't really change to reflect what the research showed. We're living through one of those moments right now. The social platforms have all uniformly slashed investments into election integrity and other forms of content moderation. And Silicon Valley as a whole is working closely with the Trump White House to resist meaningful attempts to regulate AI. So as we'll hear, that's why Hayden was so interested in this team at Anthropic. It's fundamentally unique in the industry right now. In fact, Anthropic is a bit of an outlier in the entire AI industry because of how amenable CEO Dario Moda has been to calls for AI regulation, both at the state and
3:46 Speaker 04 federal level. Anthropic is also seen as the most safety-first of the leading AI labs because it was formed by former research executives at OpenAI who were worried that their concerns about AI safety weren't being taken seriously. There's actually quite a few companies formed by former OpenAI people worried about OpenAI, Sam Altman, and AI safety. It's a real theme of the industry, but Anthropic seems to be taking it to the next level. So I asked Hayden about all this, about all the pressures being put on the AI labs, about Anthropic's reputation within the industry in favor of regulation and AI safety, and how that all impacts the societal impacts team, and whether it can really meaningfully study and even perhaps influence AI product development. Or if as history suggests, this will just look good on paper until it quietly goes away.
4:30 Speaker 04 There's a lot here, especially if you're interested in how AI companies think about safety from a cultural, moral, and business perspective. One quick note before we start, we're running a special end of the year mailbag episode of Decoder later this month, where we answer your questions about the show, who we should talk to, what topics we should cover in 2026, what you like, what you hate, all of it. Please send your questions to [email protected] and we'll do our best to feature as many as we can. Okay. Verge senior AI reporter Hayden Field on the team at Anthropic that's trying to keep AI from destroying the entire world. Here we go.
5:15 Speaker 04 Hayden Field, you are a senior AI reporter here at The Verge. Welcome to Decoder.
5:19 Speaker 05 Thanks so much. It's great to be here.
5:21 Speaker 04 I'm excited to talk to you. I feel like there's a lot of variations of the AI story, a lot of sub-stories within the big story, and kind of at the top of the list is, will it kill us all? It seems like the most important story, maybe a little undercovered, but you just wrote a big piece on Anthropic, the team inside Anthropic that is trying to prevent the AI from killing us all. There's some political considerations with trying to prevent AI from killing us all, which are fascinating, and then there's the work itself. So describe what your story is about and that team at Anthropic and what they're up to.
5:52 Speaker 05 Yeah, I've been fascinated by this team for a while. It's called the Societal Impacts Team, and it's a group of now only nine people compared to Anthropic's staff of like more than 2,000, and they're solely tasked with figuring out the societal impact that this technology is going to have on all of us. So it's just crazy to me that so few people are tasked with this huge thorny question of how AI is going to impact us as a society all over the world, how it's going to impact our jobs, our brains, our democratic election processes, basically everything. Obviously, the company also has a trust and safety team, safeguards team, people that are working on safety throughout, but when it comes to societal impacts, it's mostly
6:37 Speaker 05 this group. And no other AI lab has a so-called societal impacts team. They have people that are thinking about these questions, sure, but it's just interesting to me that out of all the AI labs, there's only this one team that's working on just this, and that it's so few people compared to the larger staff. I think that maybe helps them get past some red tape, but it's also just crazy how few people there are.
6:58 Speaker 04 I want to come to why this team is at Anthropic while companies, obviously Anthropic has kind of a deep history thinking about AI safety. But just step back, is a societal impact team, do they just sit around in a conference room thinking about all the bad things that could happen? Like, how do they work?
7:13 Speaker 05 So basically, what happens is they look at a lot of data. They try to figure out how people are using Claude, which is Anthropic's chatbot. They try to figure out how people are thinking about Claude and other chatbots and how that's going to impact the economy and jobs, how that's going to impact elections, you know, like, are people trusting chatbots too much? Are chatbots giving inaccurate answers to people's questions about different politicians? Which human values, that's their term, should AI models hold, if at all? And also, how it's being misused in the wild?
7:47 Speaker 04 The reason I brought up Anthropic and where the company came from is that it, there are a bunch of people who left OpenAI because they were kind of AI doomers, right? They didn't think OpenAI was being safe enough. They certainly thought Sam Altman and OpenAI were being reckless in deploying AI technology. So you set up Anthropic to be the safe one. There's quite a lot, there's quite a significant trend of people leaving OpenAI to start a safer AI company. But then there's a part of me that says having a societal impact team is just wish casting, right? You have a team inside the company whose entire job is to say that AI will change everything and here's all the potential impacts, and that's just going to help you sell more AI. Is that a dynamic inside of the company? Do they see that as a criticism?
8:32 Speaker 05 I think what's interesting about all these companies and their safety teams, or so-called safety teams of any kind, whether it's, you know, this team, whether it's a safeguards team, a trust and safety team, whatever it's called, it's better than not having them because a lot of times they are putting out research that is impacting the whole industry. And if you look at some of the most concerning headlines this year in AI that, you know, makes it to the general public, a lot of that research came from Anthropic Societal Impact Team. So I mean, they're doing good work. But the question is, why do these teams even exist inside these companies? Yeah, you know, maybe executives care about safety. But I also think the other part of it no one talks about is that it's a way to kind of avoid federal regulation. They can say, hey, look, we're regulating ourselves.
9:17 Speaker 05 We're doing good. We're putting research out there that exposes the bad stuff about AI. We don't need you to regulate us. And of course Anthropic has called for more state level regulation. And, you know, they've publicly been more pro regulation than some AI companies in terms of like their soapbox. But yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, most AI labs, safety teams, whatever they're called, are a way for them to point internally and say, hey, we're already doing this ourselves. You don't need to regulate us, whether on a state or federal level.
9:46 Speaker 04 I see the existence of a team whose entire job is to generate studies that say, we'll need 50% less lawyers in the future as a way to market AI to law firms. But the goal of this team is to uncover, quote, inconvenient truths about AI. What are some of those inconvenient truths? Do they, do they lay them out for you?
10:05 Speaker 05 Yeah, and that's why I think this team is so interesting compared to other kind of safety or safeguard or trust and safety teams in the industry. Because the type of research they're putting out can be damning. And they are allowed to still put it out, at least right now. That's why it's so fascinating to me. I could see a team at another company, which again, no other company has a team like this. But a safety team at another company, I could see certain things being changed or tweaked to kind of put the company in a better light. Right now, the Societal Impacts team has a lot of freedom. They're able to just publish inconvenient truths, which is their goal. I don't know how long that's going to last, but I do know that it's the case right now. So one example is they were able to study Anthropic's own safety monitoring systems and kind of publicize the big gaps.
10:50 Speaker 05 Like they found people were using Claude to create explicit pornographic stories with graphic sexual content. They found a network of bots that were kind of trying to create SEO optimized spam. They also found like coordinated misuse at individual conversation levels that was kind of flying under the radar. They found stuff about how Claude can offer biased opinions that don't really. Represent the diverse global perspectives on really important issues. So yeah, they've been putting out pretty damning stuff sometimes, and the company has let them do it so far.
11:25 Speaker 04 Can you give us some examples of the kinds of reports this team has put out that are maybe not so great for Anthropic or Paint AI at a more negative light?
11:34 Speaker 05 Completely. So they've done a lot of stuff on how to mitigate elections-related risks, discrimination, AI's ability to persuade people of things, its economic impact. They did something on how Claude could potentially provide like personal opinions on election things, like controversial political topics, different politicians, maybe even inaccurate answers. And also a lot of stuff just about the economic impact of AI and which jobs it was most likely to take, which types of companies are adopting Claude first, how much they're doing with it. So yeah, basically how chatbots can affect people's brains, election processes, jobs,
12:18 Speaker 05 you know, their own opinions in terms of AI's ability to persuade you of things. And, you know, they say that they're going to do a lot more research also on AI psychosis and other types of like emotional connections with chatbots over the next six months.
12:32 Speaker 04 What do you think the wildest impacts that they've predicted have been?
12:35 Speaker 05 I think the craziest impacts have honestly been election-related stuff, like how these models can have personal opinions, quote, quote, about different political topics or candidates. And sometimes they're totally wrong, or sometimes they're just really skewed. The other impact that I thought was really interesting was just the fact that these safeguards that these companies say are like pretty ironclad, aren't. We saw that with OpenAI saying that, you know, its safeguards break down over long conversations. And there have been a ton of lawsuits in that regard with, you know, teens dying by suicide, other young people falling victim to, you know, pretty problematic chains of thought. And with Anthropic, I mean,
13:19 Speaker 05 We've also seen this team highlight the gaps in their own safeguards. So people can get around these voluntary safety frameworks pretty easily. And I think that's one of the most intense things that they've highlighted. It's just no matter how much work you do to try to keep people from misusing your system, one, you can't, and two, you don't know what happens when they leave the platform. And so you may think you're stopping some harms, but at the end of the day, you may not have impacted it at all. So I think that's something they've highlighted and, you know, it's something for us all to think about.
13:54 Speaker 04 We need to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
14:05 Speaker 01 Flowing ad budget on metrics that look great till the CFO sees them? That's bull spend and marketers are calling it out in Dashboard Confessions.
14:14 Speaker 02 I remember telling my boss, it'll be good for the brand when leads were slow. Yeah, it wasn't.
14:22 Speaker 01 Cut the bull spend. LinkedIn lets you target by company, job title and more. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com/campaign. Terms and conditions apply.
14:35 Speaker 03 College football is back. So Hilton called to me, the superstition concierge, to make your fan rituals a reality. Need a room to match your lucky number? We got you. Want to make sure our team doesn't wash your lucky jersey? Oh, that smells lucky. Hilton's unmatched hospitality can keep up with any superstition. Even a marching band wake up call at 5:55 in 55 seconds. Hit it! When you need a team that will do whatever it takes on game day, it matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay.
15:05 Speaker 06 Propel Fitness Water with Gatorade Electrolytes, zero sugar and vitamins. Propel hydrates better than water to help you get the most out of your workout and get back to your best self. What propels you? Propel with Gatorade Electrolytes.
15:22 Speaker 07 When you've got a job to do, Lowe's knows how to help you keep it moving. My Lowe's Pro Rewards members save more with member volume discounts on eligible orders through a quote of $2,000 or more. Plus, save time with job site delivery on select purchases. Not a member? Join for free today. Exclusions, more terms and restrictions apply. Can't be combined with any other discount, including but not limited to contract and/or special pricing. Loyalty program subject to terms and conditions. Details at Lowe's.com/TERMS. Subject to change.
15:54 Speaker 04 We're back with Verge senior AI reporter Hayden Field. Before the break, we were discussing Anthropic's societal impacts team, how it works, and some of its most interesting findings so far. But now, I want to dig into the broader dynamics of the AI industry and ask why a company like Anthropic has earned a reputation that sets it apart from OpenAI and other competitors.
16:14 Speaker 04 So let me make the specific comparison to OpenAI. OpenAI, they have a trust and safety team. They say they care about it. But famously, Helen Tonner was on the board of OpenAI. She was on the board of the nonprofit. She published a paper criticizing some AI safety concerns. Sam Altman was very mad at this paper. And you can point to that as the beginning of the rift that led the board at OpenAI to fire Sam Altman and then rehire him and then they all had to quit. That is a pretty tense situation, right? The board member of the AI company publishes a paper critical of AI, OpenAI falls apart for 48 hours, 72 hours, whatever it was, and is then put back together in a totally different way. Obviously, that's not the dynamic at Anthropic. Is that just because Anthropic
16:58 Speaker 04 CEO Dario Emode cares about it? Is it because the company bills itself as caring more about safety? Where does that culture come from?
17:07 Speaker 05 I think it's both. So I do think, you know, obviously, the whole mission behind Anthropic, the whole lore behind it is that research executives left OpenAI because they felt like it wasn't being safe enough and they wanted to do it in their own way. Now, does that mean they care? Yeah, they care more than many people. But it's also really good for business to care about this stuff. So, for example, Anthropic's business has been growing at a pretty high rate. You know, it just got a huge valuation in the last couple of months because It's really great for business to look like you're the reputable, safe, responsible, adult AI company when your clients that are giving you the most money are enterprises,
17:47 Speaker 05 governments, and academic institutions. No one wants a off-the-wall, crazy, can't-predict-it, not-super-safe AI company running off with their business data. So I mean, it's good for business and they say it's good for the world. So I think it's really just both. Yeah, do they care more than most people? Yeah, but it's also great for their bottom line to care and to be seen with this type of reputation.
18:09 Speaker 04 Yeah, there's a lot of fundraising going on. I think Anthropic raised more money just recently, last month. It's a $350 billion valuation. That's in range of OpenAI. They have investors, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, and others. They are the safe one. That's the reputation the company has. They're the ones that don't talk about AGI as much, although I suspect it's burbling in the background, having met some of their executives. They just don't want to say it because they don't want to be perceived as the reckless ones.
18:38 Speaker 05 Right.
18:39 Speaker 04 How does that impact this societal impact team? Are they allowed to slow the company down because they're predicting these negative impacts and doing these studies that show the negative impacts? Or are they just good for business and they're kind of a marketing tool?
18:52 Speaker 05 Yeah, that's a really good question, and I do think it's both. We've seen that Anthropic has justified some of its more controversial decisions with saying, hey, yeah, we're the safe one, but we have to stay at the forefront of the race so that we can help guide the advancement of this technology. Dario, the CEO, recently had to put out a memo internally where he talked about how they were going to accept Saudi money for the first time. And he said, I really wish we weren't in this position, but we are. And he said, unfortunately, I think no bad person should ever benefit from our success is a pretty difficult principle to run a business on. So he was talking about how there's so much capital in the Middle East and they really needed to accept it
19:34 Speaker 05 in order to remain on the forefront of the industry and stay competitive with OpenAI and other labs. So I think that's kind of a great allegory for what's going on here. It's like, even if you care about safety, you know, you can explain away a lot of your decisions if you're saying, well, yeah, we care, but we have to stay competitive or else we won't be able to shape the advancement of this technology at all. So that's kind of, I think, an interesting point of tension, probably internally, are the decisions we make. Worth us staying on the forefront of this tech? Are they explainable by that? How far can we go in one direction before we can't be pulled back? Right now, like I said, this team is able to put out damning stuff.
20:14 Speaker 05 They're able to reveal things about the company's own tech and the way it works and how people are using it that can be pretty disturbing. Anthropic's also good about that with its fellows program. It's the research that they put out. They can be really disturbing reports and, you know, they're, they make the headlines and they keep putting them out. I think that's good, though, for their reputation. Once again, it's like, you know, if you feel like as a client of these companies that they don't have anything to hide, you're more likely to go with them and feel like they aren't using your internal valuable business data for nefarious purposes.
20:48 Speaker 04 So that line from Dario, no bad person should benefit from our success is a bad way to run a business. That's like a very Silicon Valley way to think, right? There's lots of businesses that actually hold the line and say, we don't think bad people should benefit from our success. Like, there's a lot of people individually who are like, I don't think I should help bad people. And that is a line they can draw. But that's unworkable at the scale of these companies, right? If you have to go compete with OpenAI for capital, you end up raising money from the Saudis. I don't think there's another choice. Is that a tension that this team feels? That you can point out all the bad things, but eventually you're in a race with more reckless competitors or several more reckless competitors?
21:32 Speaker 05 I think so, based on what I see. Because something that I thought was really interesting is when I chatted with team members, you know, they all had great things to say about executive buy-in. They all said they felt really supported and that they were surprised at the level to which they were able to reveal, you know, potentially like really problematic things about Anthropic's own tech. But when I asked about their struggles and kind of something they wish they could do more of, pretty much all of them said that they wished that their research could have even a greater impact on Anthropic's own product. Meaning it wasn't just something that they put out and people talked about and kept it in mind, but it led to actually specific, trackable ways that Anthropic changed its own product because of their research.
22:16 Speaker 05 So, you know, that they've had a little of that, but even more of it is what they want. And so I think that that's a great. Like metaphor for this whole thing, like you can reveal this stuff, but how much is it really affecting the product? I don't think they have the authority to slow down any type of release, really. I don't think they have the authority to say, hey, you have to change the product in this way if we find something really dramatic. Have they so far had some success in kind of guiding and shaping the advancement of this tech? Yeah, with what they reveal? At the end of the day, they have to have monthly meetings with the chief science officer to talk about how, you know, they may want their research to make it into the product more. And apparently, you know, the chief product officer at Anthropic, Mike Krieger, is on board with that and amping up the actual product changes that come from this research.
23:01 Speaker 05 But we don't know. I mean, I think we're going to see a lot of telling things over the next six months in terms of how this team's research actually makes it into the product or not.
23:10 Speaker 04 Mike Krieger is a fascinating character to have as the head of product at Anthropic. He obviously was at Instagram. He has a deep background in trust and safety and content moderation, which hard fought when you're the person who started Instagram and you had to build all those systems up. There's a real dynamic between what you have a trust and safety team do, which is moderate the user inputs and outputs and actually stop the chatbot from doing things and what a team like this is researching as potential harms. Is there any interaction there? Do they ever get to tell the trust and safety team, hey, before this bad thing actually starts happening, we should stop it?
23:44 Speaker 05 They are able to talk to them a lot and collaborate with them a lot. I'm not sure if they ever have the authority to be like, hey, we really recommend that you don't do this. The good news is they do have pretty open communication between the teams. They sit pretty near to a safety team. You know, they have Slack channels where they can voice their concerns ahead of time. So there's pretty open communication and they do cross collaborate with those other teams with a lot of their research. So that's good. They also, something really cool about this team, the societal impacts team, is that they did build a tracker for how people are using Claude for the first time, like, which it could have come earlier, but it's great that they were able to do it. They basically built like a Google Trends for how people are using Claude, what people are trying to do with it.
24:28 Speaker 05 And that's how they were able to figure out like some of the problematic stuff I talked about earlier with like the Porn and the, you know, like SEO spam. They're able to see kind of word clouds of what people are working on, what people are asking Claude for. And then they can like kind of zoom in on that and say, oh, whoa, this made it past our safety monitoring systems. And this is probably pretty messed up. Or on the other hand, they can just see weird stuff people are doing, like asking Claude for advice on, you know, really personal matters. Not saying that's totally weird, but I'm just saying, you know, stuff that they get surprised by. And they're like, oh, okay. We didn't realize people were relying this emotionally deeply on Claude. What should we do about that? Should we like, should we research that? Or do focus groups or do personal interviews with people
25:13 Speaker 05 to see how this is really impacting their lives? They said that's something they want to do more of over the next year. Basically just interview people and do more kind of like social research because, you know, you can't always see it just from these Google trends or data. You need to talk to people about what happens when they're emotionally impacted by these chatbots, as we've been seeing with AI psychoses left and right over the last year.
25:37 Speaker 04 We need to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
25:48 Speaker 01 Are your ad campaigns lighting up the dashboard? But not the pipeline? That's bull spend and marketers are calling it out in. Dashboard Confessions.
25:57 Speaker 02 My boss asked for results, so I opened my dashboard for the only positive sounding metric I had. Impressions.
26:04 Speaker 01 Cut the bull spend. See revenue, not just reach. LinkedIn delivers the highest return on ad spend of major ad networks. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com/campaign. Terms and conditions apply.
26:18 Speaker 03 College football is back. So Hilton called to me, the superstition concierge, to make your fan rituals a reality. Need a room to match your lucky number? We got you. Want to make sure our team doesn't wash your lucky jersey? Oh, that smells lucky. Hilton's unmatched hospitality can keep up with any superstition. Even a marching band wake up call at 5:55 in 55 seconds. Hit it! When you need a team that will do whatever it takes on game day, it matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay.
26:48 Speaker 06 Propel Fitness Water with Gatorade Electrolytes, zero sugar and vitamins. Propel hydrates better than water to help you get the most out of your workout and get back to your best self. What propels you? Propel with Gatorade Electrolytes.
27:05 Speaker 07 When you've got a job to do, Lowe's knows how to help you keep it moving. My Lowe's Pro Rewards members save more with member volume discounts on eligible orders through a quote of $2,000 or more. Plus, save time with job site delivery on select purchases. Not a member? Join for free today. Exclusions, more terms and restrictions apply. Can't be combined with any other discount, including but not limited to contract and/or special pricing. Loyalty program subject to terms and conditions. Details at Lowe's.com/TERMS. Subject to change.
27:37 Speaker 04 We're back. We've reached senior AI reporter Hayden Field, discussing Anthropic's societal impacts team and how it's running headlong into an adversarial Trump White House, itching to label anything that might slow down or question the broader implications of technology as, quote, woke AI.
27:54 Speaker 04 One of the really interesting dynamics here is doing content moderation, caring about how people feel when they use the product, saying some things are not allowed to be said or generated by the chatbot. All that stuff got called woke when the social networks were doing it, right? I mean, the idea that content moderation at all was a huge infringement on rights and just part of the woke agenda that was, I think Elon Musk called it the woke mind virus, that all got thrown away. But Anthropic is still doing it. They're still doing it pretty aggressively. Obviously, they're doing it in the open with this team and with their trust and safety team. And they're getting a lot of criticism for it. Anthropic has taken a lot of heat. They certainly take a lot of heat on X, which is where a lot of the AI industry still lives for some reason.
28:37 Speaker 04 Dario had to put out like a blog post being like, we love Trump. That's a weird dynamic, right? But you're saying that this is all helping them do more business because it's branding and it helps them seem more responsible. And at the same time, they're like the Trump administration is like, you're woke. We'll never do business with you. Like, how does that play together?
28:58 Speaker 05 Yeah, I think it's something that they're having to walk a very fine line here because it is good for business. You know, companies and governments want to see that AI lab allegedly doesn't have something to hide, that they're putting out research, that they're self-regulating in some potential way. But when you go too far, top-level people in the administration start saying that you're too woke and that you don't have the American innovation best interests at heart. So Dario did have to put out a statement and he said, I fully believe that Anthropic, the administration and leaders, want the same thing, to ensure the powerful AI technology benefits the American people. And he talked about how he wanted to help
29:41 Speaker 05 America secure its lead in AI development. But, you know, it's hard because I could see a report by this team, if it's too damning, mess up that balance. So it is an interesting thing that we're gonna have to watch to see how much the company keeps investing in teams like this. If the Trump administration keeps worrying that it's too woke, it's a really fine line they're having to walk. I think we could see a lot of changes over the next six months, especially because the Trump administration put out a rule for all AI labs that are selling their tech to the US government and said, hey, it has to be totally down
30:21 Speaker 05 the middle, no woke AI, you've got to really like rein this in and, you know, make everything super objective, which in their eyes is not woke.
30:30 Speaker 04 Do they define woke in that context? Like, one of my favorite Blue Sky accounts is just screenshots of people arguing with Grok on X. And Grok is just always winning because it is relentlessly in AI, and saying, no, that's not the facts. And people argue, including Elon Musk, who eventually breaks down and like yells at his own chatbot and says, you're too woke, you're being reprogrammed. And this happens over, this cycle just repeats endlessly forever, and we're doomed to keep watching it. But did the government define what they say is woke in this context? Or is it just if you disagree with us?
31:03 Speaker 05 It's it's the vibe is that it's the latter, but I mean, if you look at the executive order in July, the title of it is preventing woke AI in the federal government. So yep, it's out there, it's it's it's on the record. But yeah, I mean, it's funny, they're basically just talking about pervasive and destructive ideologies. That's their words, their problems with DEI. They're talking about how they don't want models that sacrifice truthfulness and accuracy to ideological agendas. So in their eyes, yeah, it's just basically things that they don't agree with and that in their eyes promote the liberal agenda. But yeah, we'll see, it'll be hilarious to see how these models change as a result
31:48 Speaker 05 of this executive order, because I think the deadline is this month to really roll out the changes. And so I myself am trying to test them and and see, you know, how the responses have changed from months ago to now.
31:59 Speaker 04 How did the societal impact team think about that order and how Anthropic is positioning itself? Because there's whatever the administration defines as woke and and harmful ideologies. And then there's the reality of, boy, our entire job is to study the negative things that might happen when you put AI out into the world. And some of those things are accelerating misinformation. Some of those things are election fraud. Some like, there's a lot of bad things that could happen that they've already published about right next to anything we don't like is woke, right? Like, it's it's hard to see how this team survives that executive order.
32:36 Speaker 05 The good news for the team at least is that right now their research is not changing the tone of the chatbots responses. It's more studying kind of larger potential societal trends that are going to come about as a result of AI. So, you know, it's not directly against the Trump administration's.
32:59 Speaker 05 Orders because it's, you know, they're basically just charting out how this is going to affect the economy in good ways and bad ways, all sorts of things. But you know, they're doing both sides of the coin here in terms of their research, you know, the good, the bad, the ugly. So I think I would be more worried about a team that, you know, does trust and safety or directly works on the product itself's responses and tone. You know, they're the ones that are going to have to be dealing with this executive order at the end of the day. This could have ripple effects for the societal impacts team, but it's not quite as direct.
33:33 Speaker 04 Yeah, we certainly saw the trust and safety teams at various social media platforms get gutted in the wake of Trump being reelected. Certainly Mark Zuckerberg was like, the AI will do it. And those teams also took a huge hit inside of Meta's various platforms. There was an entire time when the platform companies were deeply invested in all of this. We have written dozens of those stories over the years where, you know, there's an election and we would send a Verge reporter like Casey to a conference room that Meta called the war room for election. And all that's gone. It all got wiped away, or they're doing it, but they're doing it very secretly without drawing a lot of attention to how safe and responsible they're being. I just wonder, you know, Anthropic is, it is seen as a responsible
34:15 Speaker 04 provider. They are much more enterprise focused company. It does not seem like they're totally focused on winning the race to build consumer hardware like OpenAI or some of these other companies are. Do you think that's going to insulate them? That if you want to, you know, put an AI tool in your software development shop, what people want is Claude code, right? Like, that's the thing that they want. And that will insulate them from the weirdness of the consumer market and the culture wars that the Trump administration always seems to be trying to start.
34:45 Speaker 05 I think it definitely will insulate them. You know, hardware is hard, consumer facing tech is hard. There's, you know, you really have to get a ton of adoption really quickly to even think about making a profit. And a lot of these companies are on the hook for generating a lot of profit very soon, and they don't really know how they're going to do it. I mean, you can sell ads. Yeah, you can sell subscriptions, but. It's hard to make money from a consumer facing product and you know, the real money lies in government stuff, enterprise stuff. That's why Anthropic is going to be pretty well insulated, I think. They have the reputation, they have the clientele, and like you said,
35:24 Speaker 05 Claude Code, even amidst all the hubbub last week about Gemini 3, the people I was talking to were still obsessed with Claude Code. You know, I was talking to a bunch of startups, they were like, yeah, Gemini 3 is great, we're so in awe. And I'm like, okay, so are you changing to it for everything? And they said, no, no, we're definitely sticking with Claude Code. So from all my anecdotal evidence, and of course, the leaderboards, you're seeing Claude Code come out on top still. And you know, I mean, it is easy to switch between all these models. They all leapfrog each other every week. One can take the lead than the other one does. But so far, you know, they seem to have stayed on top for a bunch of enterprise tools and use cases. And you know, I think that's going to definitely help them in the long run.
36:07 Speaker 04 Is there anything that you think Anthropic won't do? Right? If you have a team that is predicting far out, society level impacts from the use of AI, there's gotta be stuff where they're like, this is a red line. I know a red line across the industry is don't help people make weapons, right? Like, we hear that story all the time. But is there a broader set of things that you think Anthropic won't do because this team exists?
36:32 Speaker 05 I think it's tough to say anything they won't do, because I guess I've just been reporting on AI for six years, and I've seen so many changes in these mission statements. I've seen so many companies, you know, make small tweaks to the wording about what they will and won't do. You know, we saw a lot of these companies, including Anthropic, have a total ban on working with the military. And then they walked back and said, oh, well, we will work with the military, just not on making weapons. We even saw Google, you know, delete its don't be evil clause. So I don't know that this team has the authority to really, you know, stop Anthropic from doing anything in the long run. It's mostly that one company does something, and the others all follow because they made it okay.
37:15 Speaker 05 Or some of these companies will use China as a kind of... Catch-all explanation to say, oh, well, we have to be China. So sorry, we got to do this or that. So I don't know that there's anything they won't do in the long run. They have a mission statement. They have stuck to it pretty closely so far. They have made tweaks. I could see more tweaks being made, honestly, you know, it's all in the name of staying ahead with the competition, the greater good, you know, I, I don't think there's anything these companies 100% never will do. And I don't think they would say that there is anything in that regard either because they don't know. I mean, it's all about staying with the competition for them.
37:53 Speaker 04 I think I'm very curious to see if and how long this team lasts in the, in the wake of the woke AI order going into effect and the pressure that we were seeing from this administration. We're going to have to have you back in a little bit to talk about that. Hayden, this has been great. Thank you so much for coming on Decoder.
38:07 Speaker 05 Thanks so much.
38:12 Speaker 04 I'd like to thank Hayden Field for taking the time to join Decoder and thank you for listening. I hope you enjoyed it. If you'd like to let us know what you thought about this episode, or really anything else at all, drop us a line. You can email us at [email protected] . We really do read all the emails. Or you can hit me up directly on Threads or Blue Sky. And as another reminder, we're running a special end of year mailbag episode of Decoder later this month, where we answer your questions about the show, who we should talk to, what topics we should dig into, what you want more of, what you want less of, really anything. Please send your questions in to [email protected] and we'll do our best to feature as many as we can. We're also on YouTube now. You can watch full episodes at DecoderPod. We also have a TikTok and an Instagram. They're at DecoderPod as well. They're a lot of fun. If you like Decoder, please share it with your friends and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Decoder is production The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. The show is produced by Kate Cox, Nick Statt,
38:57 Speaker 04 edited by Ursa Wright. Our editorial director is Kevin McShane. The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. We'll see you next time.
39:37 Speaker 08 Your heart can tell you a lot about your health. Apple Watch Series 12 measures your heart rate every five seconds with the most accurate heart rate sensing in wearable. So your vitals app, now with heart rate variability, can tell you when something is off. And your readiness score can let you know when to rest and when to push. Hear the story in every heartbeat with Apple Watch Series 12. The features described are for wellness purposes only and not for medical use. iPhone 11 or later required. Based on Apple conducted study of heart rate accuracy, August 2026. Visit apple.com slash apple watch series 12.
40:07 Speaker 09 Where's your playlist taking you? Down the highway? To the mountains? Or just into daydream mode while you're stuck in traffic? With over 4,000 hotels worldwide, Best Western is there to help you make the most of your getaway. Wherever that is. Because the only thing better than a great playlist... is a great trip. Life's a trip. Make the most of it at Best Western. Book direct and save at bestwestern.com.
Previous IBM CEO Arvind Krishna says there is no AI bubble after all Next Square's product chief on the death of the penny and the future of money Page updated October 26, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
