B56b

yay?

The problem is that $1500/engineer/month would be a pretty modest amount of demand for labs. OpenAI/Anthropic are basing their $1T valuations on the explosive uncapped growth of unlimited agentic token spending. On so many levels of the industry this growth is now priced in. You don't think so?

What, why? This is the web, so it has to be a solution that can handle old browser versions. Take away the old version and it's as small as it can be.

This forum is oddly hesitant to accept good news, a weird feature of online communities.

So just ignoring the link entirely, cool cool cool

Ya, that sounds right to me. Coastal city housing is very supply constrained, part of why it's so expensive, but it is hugely in demand and provides tons of value to many by letting them live near high paying companies. Unless by "overinflated" you mean a constrained supply/demand curve?

What's wrong with choosing to care about coding manually then?

How do you reconcile this with Ed Zitron's reporting that just the AWS bill in 2024/2025 was more than their entire revenue?

https://www.wheresyoured.at/costs/#how-much-did-anthropic-an...

The problem with this hype cycle has always been that the hyperscalers are pouring unbelievable amounts of capital into a technology that hasn't proven it can generate the revenues needed to justify that.

Nvidia might have an ok P/E right now, but the question is if the industry can sustain buying over $50B of GPUs every quarter(or that it even needs to).

The task isn't "make something that you could plausibly call a pencil". It's "understand every step of how a modern pencil is produced".

That's the critical difference. You could always find some person who understood a particular piece of a complex puzzle. It's a very new, worrying thing to have pieces that no one understands.

I actually do think that Dr. Haidt is a good source for getting a fair understanding of both sides of the issue. If you've read or listened to him you'll know that it's a huge part of his ethos.

Here's his rebuttal to that article: https://www.afterbabel.com/p/phone-based-childhood-cause-epi....

I think you'd struggle to find someone more earnestly trying to get an unbiased understanding of the reality of this topic.

Social media being bad for mental health in childhood is one of the most robust theories I've ever seen for these kind of society-wide problems. You can peruse the After Babel Substack for the evidence if you're not convinced, but Jonathan Haidt has consistently done incredible work here.

This hits the nail on the head. There's a marked difference between a JSON parser and a real world feature in a product. Real world features are complex because they have opaque dependencies, or ones that are unknown altogether. Creating a good solution requires building a mental model of the actual complex system you're working with, which an LLM can't do. A JSON parser is effectively a book problem with no dependencies.

This is why: https://bun.com/blog/behind-the-scenes-of-bun-install

Not exactly, this article is expanding on your linked one.

Oh you meant 0% of your usage, lol

Explains why Sam was so panicked when asked about revenues recently.

Why would that be?

Seems more like a "mega" Marshmallow Test. Instead of putting off a snack for 15 minutes they're giving up an entire year of birthday gifts for a reward years into the future.

Even if someone COULD write a great post with AI, I think the author is right in assuming that it's less likely than a handwritten one. People seem to use AI to avoid thinking hard about a topic. Otherwise, the actual writing part wouldn't be so difficult.

This is similar to the common objection for AI-coding that the hard part is done before the actual writing. Code generation was never a significant bottleneck in most cases.

No, that's no longer the case: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/open-questions/what-if-ai-...

Seriously! These two things are laughably far apart. What on earth kind of leap of logic is this?

Respectably...what?? Ed at this point is one of the most well read people on Earth for this topic. Of course he knows the difference between the companies and the technology. He goes in depth both on why he think the companies are financially unviable AND why he's unimpressed by LLM's technologically alllll the time.

Pretty obvious that your opinions have "nothing to do with the financials".

Well absent any actual explanation from him, this is the "My AI Skeptic Friends Are All Nuts" guy. I'm assuming he's got a pretty hefty pro-LLM bias.

Actually it's interesting that most of Ed's posts tend not to make the front page. This is the first one in a while.

It breaks so often in SPAs. Turns out that making the client-side code responsible for routing leads to a ton of fragility.

AI code reliability is nowhere near any number of 9s

The increase in supply he advocates for is a viable solution because it is sensitive to different things.

Small, local development gets built and becomes profitable based on demand of the local housing market, but almost all housing today is built by large developers. These large developers are responding to the demand not for housing, but for the mortgage itself. Thanks to nationalized mortgage securitization the buyers the market cares about are those buying these securities: banks, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. When prices fall these securities become less attractive financial products, which decreases the demand for large development.

Chuck advocates for local building, which can ignore this macro-level demand and instead respond to the actual local demand for shelter.