eaglelamp

From Wikipedia:

After graduation, she worked on Wall Street, first at JPMorgan Chase and then Lehman Brothers. She later joined the United States Foreign Service.

Looks pretty wall street to me.

Also you regarding Claude usage limits:

Before the doomers come in, you get $200 in API credits every month for claude -p usage. Usage counts against those API credits.

So which is it $300/day is trivial to consume or $200/month is a completely reasonable limit, it can't be both.

Inference might be unreasonable for a royalty agreement, but, in assessing damages, it is certainly relevant.

"I made enough copies for everyone" isn't a valid defense for copyright infringement.

You're misinterpreting the quote. Socrates is saying that being able to find a written quotation will replace fully understanding a concept. It's the difference between being able to quote the pythagorean theorem and understanding it well enough to prove it. That's why Socrates says that those who rely on reading will be "hard to get along with" - they will be pedantic without being able to discuss concepts freely.

Likewise with AI the appearance of reasoning without the substance could lead to boring exchanges of plausible slop rather than meaningful discourse.

China is not the only nation that depends on Gulf oil, all of SEA does as well. If the strait remains closed it will destabilize the region and diminish the prestige of the US, and with the US military focused on the strait China will benefit.

Current US interventions should be read as a sign of weakness - an inability to shape events without resorting to naked aggression. Global hegemony can not be maintained through force alone.

No one ever asks how much it costs Facebook or Uber to serve requests because it is irrelevant, they set prices to maximize their profit like any good monopolist. Similarly the future cartel of big providers will charge their captive users whatever they can get away with, not the cost of inference.

The current discourse around "AI", swarms of agents producing mountains of inscrutable spaghetti, is a tell that this is the future the big players are looking for. They want to create a captive market of token tokers who have no hope of untangling the mess they made when tokens were cheap without buying even more at full price.

If they have spare capacity then there is no opportunity cost to selling $100 subscriptions for exactly that reason. If they don’t have spare capacity then, at the margin, they could replace a subscription user with API calls that make them $5000: that’s opportunity cost.

If you own equity in Anthropic you should care about that cost. Maybe you are willing to tolerate it to win market share, but for you to make the most profit you need that cost to shrink.

You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. An investor is buying opportunity and it is a real cost to them.

If Anthropic's compute is fully saturated then the Claude code power users do represent an opportunity cost to Anthropic much closer to $5,000 then $500.

Anthropic's models may be similar in parameter size to model's on open router, but none of the others are in the headlines nearly as much (especially recently) so the comparison is extremely flawed.

The argument in this article is like comparing the cost of a Rolex to a random brand of mechanical watch based on gear count.

Anthropic knew they were going to lose this contract to OpenAI, and this is an attempt to salvage publicity from the loss.

This administration is comfortable with blatantly picking winners and OpenAI is better connected with the admin than Anthropic.

The politicians' initial efforts caused a public outcry though, when they stipulated that all samples should be destroyed on a donor's death.

Looks like you're right.

As an investor in Anthropic which pricing strategy would you support? That's the question you need to ask, not what there current pricing strategy in the win the market phase happens to be.

In my experience the most common use of this data is to build case for firing someone for cause when upper management wants them out. It's rarely used for actual security purposes.

Capitalism is the only economic system that has the privilege of being evaluated outside of the context of the society in which it exists. When socialism is criticized the political system is always, justly, included; so the purges of Stalin and the homophobia of Guevara are all taken into account. Apply the same thinking to capitalism and you have to count a lot more deaths and injustices: the Irish and Bengali famines, world war 1, climate change, etc.

You're misinterpreting the quote. Socrates is saying that being able to find a written quotation will replace fully understanding a concept. It's the difference between being able to quote the pythagorean theorem and understanding it well enough to prove it. That's why Socrates says that those who rely on reading will be "hard to get along with" - they will be pedantic without being able to discuss concepts freely.

All employees solve problems. Developers have benefited from the special techniques they have learned to solve problems. If these techniques are obsolete, or are largely replaced by minding a massive machine, the character of the work, the pay for performing it, and social position of those who perform it will change.

Normal Erlang code has a fixed number of reductions (function calls) before it must yield to a scheduler. Processes also have their own stacks and heaps and run garbage collection independently. The result is that no single process can stop the whole system by monopolizing CPU or managing shared memory.

The Erlang runtime can start a scheduler for every core on a machine and, since processes are independent, concurrency can be achieved by spawning additional processes. Processes communicate by passing messages which are copied from the sender into the mailbox of the receiver.

As an application programmer all of your code will run within a process and passively benefit from these properties. The tradeoff is that concurrency is on by default and single threaded performance can suffer. There are escape hatches to run native code, but it is more painful than writing concurrent code in a single-threaded by default language. The fundamental assumption of Erlang is that it is much more likely that you will need concurrency and fault tolerance than maximum single thread performance.

Higher level abstractions are built on rational foundations, that is the distinction. I may not understand byte code generated by a compiler, but I could research the compiler and understand how it is generated. No matter how much I study a language model I will never understand how it chose to generate any particular output.

I don’t think the author is hiding his economic anxiety behind solipsism. He states plainly he doesn’t like the deskilling of work.

My point is why are your economic motivations valid while his aren’t?

If you dig deep enough isn’t the same thing true of people like yourself? Do you truly believe that the large language models we currently have, not some fantasy AI of the distant future, are emotional and intellectual beings? Or, are you more interested in the short term economic gains of using them? Does this invalidate your beliefs? I don’t think so, most everyday beliefs are related to economic conditions.

How could a practical LLM enthusiast make a non-economic argument in favor of their use? They’re opaque usually secretive jumbles of linear algebra, how could you make a reasonable non-economic argument about something you don’t, and perhaps can’t, reason about?

The primary harm of a bubble is *not* a crash in equity values, it is the misallocation of capital. The worst outcome would be for the misallocation to continue due to the intervention of asset owners with the most to lose who are also in control of the state.

All of the events you listed have had significant economic effects and required massive intervention from the state to buoy asset prices. The longer this continues the more our economy becomes geared to producing "value" for this small, and shrinking, group of owners at the expense of everyone else.

It looks like security/surveillance play more than anything. Scale has strong relationships with the US MIC, the current administration (predating Zuck's rebranding), and gulf states.

Their Wikipedia history section lists accomplishments that align closely with DoD's vision for GenAI. The current admin, and the western political elite generally, are anxious about GenAI developments and social unrest, the pairing of Meta and Scale addresses their anxieties directly.

There is no meaningful discourse because there is no meaningful decision at stake. The owning class has decided that “AI” will be shoved into any plausible orifice and the “discourse” online is just a reaction to a decision that has already been made.

Frankly the noise being made online about AI boils down to social posturing in nearly all cases. Even the author is striking a pose of a nuanced intellectual, but this pose, like the ones he opposes, will have no impact on events.

If we are going to have a general discussion about copyright reform at a national level, I'm all for it. If we are going to let billion dollar corporations break the law to make even more money and invent legal fictions after the fact to protect them, I'm completely against it.

Training a model is not equivalent to training a human. Freedom of information for a mountain of graphics cards in a privately owned data center is not the same as freedom of information for flesh and blood human beings.

Couldn't the same guarantees be achieved with immutability? Of course this would be setting aside concerns with performance/resource usage, but the parent is describing an environment where these concerns are not primary.

Personally I find it much easier to grok immutable data, not just understand when concentrating on it, then ownership rules.

ChatGPT gov launched in January. Musk is using DOGE to hoover up tons of government data and reportedly using 'AI' technology to analyze it. There seems to be a rush to insert 'AI' into government processes, and with the government, unlike the consumer market, being the first to market will build a significant moat.

Of course this will lead to conflict between Altman and Musk as they rush to entrench themselves within the current administration. This buyout offer could be an effective tactic to delay the pending funding from Softbank, and in turn the kick off of stargate, while DOGE gets up to speed. Even a short delay could be impactful in the early days of an aggressive and fickle administration.

I didn't mean it as rhetoric, it's a simplified statement of a viewpoint.

I think rhetorically "..who choose to do business with them" is doing a lot more work than anything I wrote. Once an organization reaches a certain size individuals start losing meaningful choice in how they interact with it. You can say that the "gestalt" will of the organization is more important, but you can't make other people concede that their point of view is merely a rhetorical stance.

It's not incredible it is just a different view point. In your second paragraph you take a utilitarian point of view in which case the size of an organization is irrelevant so long as it produces a net gain for society.

An alternative view values human freedom and autonomy. From this perspective the size of an organization is relevant - a large enough organization can impose its will on individuals who don't wish to associate with it.

Neither viewpoint is wrong, but acting as if the one you prefer is somehow more correct or objective is.

I see where you're coming from, but for the problem to be solvable at all we need to presuppose some base level of agreement about the world between you and your partner. To take your critique even further (I haven't seen the article, original sub was a twitter link) how do I know that my partner agrees with me on the set of primary colors?

Ultimately the problem is constructed to prompt a discussion so any reasonable "solution" would do, or if the stakes were life and death maybe the rational solution is to play forever as suggested by other commenters.

For the first scenario send the message: If two primary colors end and state the color that results from mixing, <primary color>.

If the other participant sends a primary color in the first round you can end immediately. Given that your partner understands primary colors and mixing you will be done after one round.

The benefit of this solution is that no matter what your partner sends over to you they have the instructions needed to know what you will do on your side, which addresses the coordination challenge.

I think this solution works for some of the other scenarios as well, but I didn't read them all.