The tiny team trying to keep AI from destroying everything

Support for the show comes from Crucible Moments, a podcast from Sequoia Capital. Success is never a given, especially in tech, where everything is evolving at breakneck speed. And if you're trying something that's never been done before, chances of success are even smaller. The difference between victory and catastrophe can sometimes all come down to following a counterintuitive instinct or ignoring conventional wisdom to make a bold decision.

That's what Crucible Moments is all about. Crucible Moments is back with a new season telling the unlikely triumphs at tech giants like Supercell and Palo Alto Networks. at cruciblemoments.com. Listen to Crucible Moments today. How do more than 100 million Fortnite players join the battle without lag? AWS is how Epic Games scales up to keep them in the action. AWS powers next-level innovation for millions of businesses.

AI agents are getting pretty impressive. You might not even realize you're listening to one right now. We work 24-7 to resolve customer inquiries. No hold music, no canned answers, no frustration. Visit Sierra.ai to learn more.

Hello and welcome to Decoder. I'm Nilay Patel, Editor-in-Chief of The Verge, and Decoder is my show about big ideas and other problems. 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 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. 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 Anthropik'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 anthropics 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 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're here, 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 Mote has been to calls for AI regulation, both at the state and 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 Anthropics seems to be taking it to the next level. So I asked Aiden about all this.

about all the pressures being put on the AI labs, about anthropics' 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, as history suggests, this will just look out on paper until it quietly goes away. 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 Dakota Related 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 decoder at theverge.com 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.

Peyton Field, you are a senior AI reporter here at The Verge. Welcome to Decoder. Thanks so much. It's great to be here. 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 in Anthropic and what they're up to.

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 staff of like more than 2,000. And they're solely tasked with... 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. 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 this group and no other AI lab has a so-called societal impact.

Hacks 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. I want to come to why this team is at Anthropic World Companies. Obviously, Anthropic has kind of a deep history thinking about AI safety. But just step back. Is this a societal impact team? Do they just... Sit around in a conference room thinking about all the bad things that could happen. How do they work?

So basically what happens is they look at a lot of data. They try to figure out how people are using Claude, which is Anthropics 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. The reason I brought up Anthropic and where the company came from is that... There were 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.

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?

I think what's interesting about all these companies and their safety teams or so-called safety teams of any kind, whether it's 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 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. 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 their soapbox. But yeah, 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. 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 lay them out for you? 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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 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. 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.

What do you think the wildest impacts that they've predicted have been? 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. impact that I thought was really interesting was just the fact that these safeguards that these companies say are like pretty ironclad.

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, we've also seen this team highlight the gaps in their own safeguards.

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. We need to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

Imagine if any of the movies that included the line, I need the right person for the job, settled for, I'll just take about anyone. How many heists would have failed? How many deals would have fallen through? How many secret spy missions? would have ended in disaster. So why would you accept just anyone when hiring for your business? When you need the right person for the job, you can turn to LinkedIn Jobs. And now LinkedIn Jobs is stepping things up with their new AI assistant.

So you can feel confident you're finding top talent that you can't find anywhere else. With LinkedIn Jobs AI Assistant, you can skip the confusing steps and recruiting jargon. It filters through applicants based on criteria you've set for your role. and surfaces only the best matches so you're not stuck sorting through a mountain of resumes. Hire right the first time. Post your job for free at linkedin.com slash partner.

Then promote it to use LinkedIn Jobs' new AI assistant, making it easier and faster to find top candidates. That's linkedin.com slash partner to post your job for free. Terms and conditions apply. Millions of players. One world. No lag. How's it done? AWS is how. Epic Games turn to AWS to scale to more than 100 million Fortnite players worldwide, so they can stay locked in with battle-tested reliability. AWS is how leading businesses power next-level innovation.

Support for this show comes from Shopify. If you shopped online, chances are you've bought from a business powered by Shopify. You know, that purple shop pay button you see at the checkout? The one that makes buying so incredibly easy? That's Shopify.

And there's a reason so many businesses sell with it. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. From household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands just getting started.

With hundreds of ready-to-use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store to match your brand's style. And Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. Turn those dreams into and give them the best shot at success.

Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com slash decoder. Go to shopify.com slash decoder. That's shopify.com slash decoder. Support for this show comes from Vanta. Customer trust can make or break your business. And the more your business grows, the more complex your security and compliance tools get. It can turn into chaos and chaos isn't a security strategy.

That's where Vanta comes in. Think of Vanta as your always-on AI-powered security expert who scales with you. Vanta automates compliance, continuously monitors your controls, and gives you a single source of truth for compliance and risk. So whether you're a fast-growing startup like Cursor or an enterprise like Snowflake, Vanta fits easily into your existing workflows so you can keep growing a company your customers can trust.

Get started at Vanta.com slash decoder. That's V-A-N-T-A dot com slash decoder. Vanta.com slash decoder.

We're back with Verge senior AI reporter Hayden Field. Before the break, we were discussing Anthropics' 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 asked why a company like Anthropic has earned a reputation that sets it apart from OpenAI and other competitors. 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 Toner 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.

The board member of the AI company publishes a paper critical of AI, open AI 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's CEO, Dario Amode, cares about it? Is it because the company bills itself is caring more about safety? Where does that culture come from?

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 opening eye 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, Anthropics 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.

governments and academic institutions. No one wants an 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.

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. Right. 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?

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 them.

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 as 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 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. 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 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. 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 open AI 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?

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 Anthropics' 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 wish 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.

own product because of their research. So 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. 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. 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?

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. And that's how they were able to figure out some of the problematic stuff I talked about earlier with the porn and the 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 research that or do focus groups or do personal interviews with people 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 psychosis left and right over the last year. We need to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

Support for the show comes from Rippling. Your IT team shouldn't be endlessly chasing tickets and manually solving access and identifying problems. But when you're running multiple disconnected tools, this is exactly what you have to deal with. And that's not SaaS. That's SAD. Software as a disservice. What if you can run IT with one system powered by one source of truth? Meet Rippling. Rippling is the unified platform for global HR, payroll,

I.T. and finance. They've helped millions replace their mess of cobbled together tools with one system designed to give leaders clarity, speed and control. By uniting your employees, teams and departments into one system. Rippling removes the bottlenecks, busy work, and silos your software created. Automated, perfectly in sync, and seriously simple to use, Rippling gives your company one source of truth for your people, their data, and everything they touch.

With Rippling, you can run your entire HR, IT and finance operations as one or pick and choose the products that best fill the gaps in your software stack. And right now you can get six months free. when you go to rippling.com slash decoder. Learn more at r-i-p-p-l-i-n-g dot com slash decoder. That's rippling.com slash decoder for six months free.

Terms and conditions apply. Support for Decoder comes from Superhuman. AI promises a lot, but in practice, it often ends up being yet another tab you have to keep track of, slowing you down. I don't know about you, but I need fewer tabs and apps in my life, not more. Say hello to Superhuman, the AI productivity sweep that gives you superpowers everywhere you work. With Grammarly, Mail, and Coda working together,

You get proactive help across your workflow, from writing to preparing for meetings, presentations, and so much more. Unlike chatbots that live in separate windows, Superhuman's AI is in the apps and tabs where you already are, like your email, docs, and everywhere you work. Think of Superhuman as your AI dream team, proactively helping you go from to do to done faster. Superhuman knows what you might need and offer suggestions. It guides you in the moment.

So you sound like your best self and stay focused on what matters. It doesn't make you superhuman. It gives you the tools to prove you always were. Unleash your superhuman potential with AI that meets you where you work. Learn more at superhuman.com slash podcast. That's superhuman.com slash podcast. Support for this show comes from Amazon ads. It's time for some fresh tech consumer insights.

And Amazon ads just released a study that's seriously challenging what we thought we knew about electronics shoppers. Remember when we assumed everyone bought headphones out of necessity? Turns out, according to their study, only 54% do.

The rest, they're impulse buying or chasing the latest drop. They also found out that 45% of gamers buy completely spontaneously. And despite all the digital options, they're reporting that 38% of games are still bought in physical stores not exactly what you'd expect in the age of downloads for brands this means rethinking their approach to reaching customers throughout the purchase journey from building awareness with streaming tv ads

to driving consideration through display advertising, all the way to capturing those crucial purchase moments and more. Ready to rethink your strategy? Head to advertising.amazon.com to learn more. That's advertising. Guys, thanks for helping me carry my Christmas tree. Zoe, this thing weighs a ton. Gersky, lift with your legs, man. He's talking to you, Bridges. I'm not that. Of course he did. Right, Santa? You know, my elf Drewski here, he handles the nice list. And elf, I'm 6'3".

What everyone wants is iPhone 17. And at T-Mobile, you can get it on them. That center stage front camera is amazing for group selfies. Right, Mrs. Claus? I'm Mrs. Claus's much younger sister. And at T-Mobile, there's no trade-in needed when you switch. So you can keep... And the best part, you can make the switch to T-Mobile from your phone in just 15 minutes. Nice. My side of the tree is slipping. Timber! The holidays are better at T-Mobile. Switch in just 15 minutes and get iPhone 17 on us.

with no trading needed. With 24 monthly bill credits for well-qualified customers plus tax and $35 device connection charge. Credits end and balance due if you pay off earlier canceled. Finance agreement, 256 gigs, $830. Eligible port in a new line, $100 plus a month plan with auto pay plus taxes and fees required. Check out in 15 minutes or less per line. Visit T-Mobile.com.

We're back with Verge senior AI reporter Hayden Field, discussing Anthropics' 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. 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 – 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. 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 – Like the Trump administration is like, you're woke. We'll never do business with you. Like how does that play together?

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.

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 America secure its lead in the 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 going to have to watch to see how much the company keeps investing in teams like this. 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 U.S. government and said, hey, it has to be totally down the middle. No woke AI. You've got to really like rein this in. make everything super objective, which in their eyes is not woke. Do they define woke in that context? 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 an 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 would disagree with us?

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 on it's on the record but yeah i mean it's funny they're basically just talking about um 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.

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 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 see how the responses have changed from months ago to now. How did the societal impact team think? think about that order and how anthropic is positioning itself because there's – whatever the administration defines as woke 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. 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 hard to see how this team survives that executive order.

The good news for the team, at least, is that right now their research is not changing the tone of the chatbot's 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 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 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. 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.

Those teams all 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 dissent 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 provider. They are a 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 the other companies are. Do you think that's going to insulate them? That if you want to put an AI tool in your software development shop? What people want is cloud 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.

I think it definitely will insulate them. You know, hardware is hard. Consumer-facing tech is hard. 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. said, Claude Code, even amidst all the hubbub last week about Gemini 3.

The people I was talking to were still obsessed with Cloud Code. 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 forever? 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 Cloud 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 I think that's going to definitely help them in the long run. 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 got to 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? 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 make small tweaks to the wording about what they will and won't do. 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.

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. Or some of these companies will use China as a kind of...

catch-all explanation to say, oh, well, we have to beat 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've stuck to it pretty closely so far. They have made tweaks. 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. I think I'm very curious to see if and how long this team lasts.

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. Thanks so much.

I'd like to thank Hayden Fields 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 decoder at theverge.com. 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 decoder at theverge.com 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 a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. The show is produced by Kate Cox and Nick Stat, edited by Ursa Wright. Our editorial director is Kevin McShane. The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. We'll see you next time.

Support for this show comes from Amazon ads. There's a lot of folksy wisdom out there regarding advertising, truisms, things that people like to say, but that's not the same thing as hard data. Luckily, Amazon Ads just released a study that challenges what we thought we knew about electronics shoppers. Remember when popular opinion assumed everyone bought headphones out of necessity? Turns out only 54% do. The rest?

They're impulse buying or chasing the latest new product launch. For brands, this means rethinking their approach to reaching customers throughout their purchase journey, from building awareness to capturing those crucial purchase moments. Ready to rethink your strategy? Head to advertising.amazon.com to learn more. That's advertising.amazon.com. Support for this show comes from Snapdragon.

Take charge of your day with a PC that can keep up with you. With PCs powered by Snapdragon X Elite processors, you get up to 22 hours of battery life so you can be productive on your terms. Whether that's during coffee shop marathons, airport layovers, or wherever life takes you. It's the performance you deserve for your busy life. Break free from power outlets with a PC powered by Snapdragon X Elite.

Learn more at snapdragon.com slash laptops. Battery life varies significantly based on device settings, usage, and other factors. Support for this show comes from SC Johnson. We've all been there. Choosing not to wear your new white shoes because there's a 10% chance of rain. Bending awkwardly over the tiny coffee table to enjoy a sip of your latte. Not ordering the red sauce.

Those feelings of dread are what we call Stainziety. But now, you can break free from your Stainziety with Shout's Triple Acting Spray that has stain-fighting ingredients to remove a huge variety of stains. so you can live in the moment and clean up later. Just breathe and shout with Shout Triple Acting Spray.