OkWing99

Some of it is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Woman_(Gwen_Stacy)

(i.e. the porn references)

I used to have the CC $200 plan, and moved to Codex 6 months ago. I have the anthropic $20 plan + API billing for rare use. Use Codex daily.

Not having to deal with Anthropics constantly changing policies, token-gating, and carrot-and-stick marketing helps me to focus on work, rather than dealing with their company problems.

I think their goal is to merge Codex and ChatGPT usage.

Why did they break a perfectly working system.

Instead of keeping Codex work isolated, now I have to deal with other constant changing bloat.

Maybe they should try running Mythos to check Claude Code, given their marketing with it's superior performance.

So what happens to their $1T valuations now, given they can't sell the product to consumers, and open-weight models are closing in on competition?

Why do I get the feeling the administration is doing this to buy a position in the AI companies before they go public.

If non US citizens shouldn't have the models - wouldn't that cause both Anthropic and OAI to fire non-citizens?

I think US is the only country that's asked to limit their frontier model access based on the Citizenship of the user.

Let's say Gemini gets to AGI by tomorrow, will my Google account access, or Gemini apps access and data be blocked if I'm not a US citizen? (Anthropic did it with a 5% better model).

If US is classifying the model access based on citizenship, that's similar to treating it as a Defense capability.

At this point, the papers, reviews and defense are all done by bots.

From the paper, "we collected feedback from 15 to 20 frequent users". Is it 15 or 20?

I lot of interpretive claims, it reads more like a marketing case study.

For those who think this is a joke, there's no differnce between this concept and data centers in space concept, that's worth $2T. Both are not yet proven to work yet. At least they're not screwing the pubilc.

Wouldn't it be funny if US Gov takes a 10% stake in Anthropic.

I remember the "Don't be evil" days from Google. At some point most morals change with enough money.

It's selective reporting. Says 'in one example', but out of how many, is that one-shot, or is it a random result out of 100. It's a marketing doc.

They don't test CC updates before release. The testing is done by their own team using the product or public feedback.

Says in the papers. "...which was first mathematically generated in one shot by an internal model at OpenAI, and then expositionally refined through human interactions with Codex."

Doesn't really matter the prep-work, what they say is it's a one-shot result, achieved by AI. The blog doesn't claim it was done by a currently public Model.

The question wasn't about the quality of the work done or a criticism of AI in general. But those were areas where people were employed and got paid to do a job. The output may not have been acceptable from Silicon Valley standards - but they were still employed and paid taxes.

It's about whole industries/sectors getting destroyed by a single company. 'Overhiring' is a result of changed business situations. Companies don't overhire hundreds and thousands of people intentionally to let them go. They hired to fill a need. Market conditions changed, competition changed.

Entry level hiring is mostly destroyed mainly because of Anthropic's messaging. Other labs don't push that hard on every vertical because they created a skill with some .md files - and pretend is a highly skilled AI.

I'm not against Anthropic doing it, I'm just saying what they're doing at the moment. Given enough time, Anthropic will be coming after every job that can be done by a computer - including yours and mine.

I think it's about time we need to move past this 'pandemic overhiring' story. Pandemic ended years ago.

Revenue growth from an existing customer base doesn't necessarily mean the company is healthy for the long term. Look at Salesforce and Figma revenue reporting vs their stock futures.

1. Figma (in progress)

2. Most entry level jobs for current graduates in white collar fields. (See hiring rates for these positions)

3. Thousands of layoffs (mostly attributed to AI use, while not 100%, the Anthropic's specific marketing push has a huge influence on this - unlike OAI and other labs)

4. All low-code products/startups

5. Web agencies who did small websites for local businesses

While AI industry push is there for all of the above, Anthropic's specific marketing/PR is specifically directed towards forced adoption of AI and burning tokens, unlike from other labs.

Anthropics New Playbook:

`/loop 2days /create-new-{insert-industry}-md-files`

This is only for PR. No one checks what's in those docs, or if these are real, valid or ethical. The goal here is for all news outlets to pick them up. You're not the audience.

Given the amount of free PR they can get from some AI-generated .md files, I'd probably do the same if I was on their boat.

Right now, I don't think any other AI company generates as much as slop as Anthropic does.

Change the country from 'US' to 'China' or 'Iran'. And ask the question again.

Can someone who has done this, simplify and say what specs we need on a `local computer` to run and test this, with a reasonable speed?

Excluding MBP M5 128GB.

Do read the actual blog the bot has written. Feelings aside, the bot's reasoning is logical. The bot (allegedly) did a better performance improvement than the maintainer.

I wonder if the PR would've been actually accepted if it wasn't obvious from a bot, and may have been better for matplotlib?

You missed the rest of it.

“So you keep pushing on making it constitutional. I’m totally supportive of that,” Karp said.