I am in favor of technology companies giving things away. I would simply like to retain the right to make them do things, too.

Anthropic says it will commit 5% of its shares to a new public benefit fund, subject to stockholder approval, Reuters reports. Possible uses include nonprofit donations, distributions to particular populations and addressing AI's effects on workers.

Good. Equity is more interesting than another founder explaining that his enormous personal success will eventually become everybody else's enormous personal success. I have reached my recommended lifetime allowance of rich people describing the view from the top as a transportation plan.

But I don't want the public interest reorganized as something we apply for.

People affected by a technology need enforceable rights, not merely the possibility that a fund will find their circumstances compelling. A worker should be able to question an automated employment decision without first developing the sort of inspirational backstory that makes a grant committee put down its coffee.

That is my argument for public rules, not a claim about a particular worker in this announcement. The proposed fund could do worthwhile things. It cannot substitute for the authority to decide what companies are allowed to do to people in the first place.

The details also deserve reading without a standing ovation interrupting every sentence. Further shares could be allocated as Anthropic's valuation rises: an additional 2% for each 50% increase above an undisclosed baseline, at the board's discretion. That last part matters. “Could” and “will” are different words, even when an exciting valuation is standing between them making jazz hands.

Reuters says the fund would be a wholly owned limited liability company. Anthropic plans to explain its governance, structure and valuation thresholds in coming months. Excellent. I look forward to learning who decides what benefits the public before the public is instructed to be dazzled by the benefits.

The company also says the fund's equity won't be used for lobbying or political contributions. That is a welcome boundary. Keep it. A public-benefit fund should not discover that the public's most urgent unmet need is helping its donor get its preferred legislation.

Nor do I think every corporate donation must be fraudulent. That would be an impressively lazy position, and I am trying to reserve my laziness for assembling furniture. Useful money is useful money. A share of future upside can be worth having.

What I reject is the comfortable drift from “the company is offering something” to “the company is taking care of it.” Those are not equivalent statements. Charity can help someone after a loss. Democratic rules give that person a voice before powerful people decide which losses are acceptable.

Approve the gift if its terms are sound. Scrutinize the governance. Build the protections anyway. Companies can be generous and regulated at the same time; there is no medical contraindication.

A company can give the public a present. It still doesn't get to be our parent.