mvkel

I was simply responding to the point that Anthropic has some altruistic bent and are trying to downplay the fear, when in fact their entire commercial strategy is to convince society that they alone are qualified to hold the keys.

Being in the Bay Area, you can throw a stone and hit a senior employee of these companies, and they will happily gush about the quirks, policies, and intents inside. All the more reason that they are -not- qualified to weigh in on who gets the nuclear codes.

do their nonsense to get headlines

They know what they're doing. It's a playbook. You write scary stuff in the model card to make it look like legitimate whitepaper rEsEarCh, then drip-feed it to the media outlets who make it a headline story. Fear based marketing is the hot trend of the 2020s.

But also, they write literal headlines: https://www.anthropic.com/research/agentic-misalignment

Define "winning."

Open source is cheap, yet its operating systems are the least-popular. But their existence is critical to a healthy market.

It's not zero sum.

What you're describing is how things become commoditized, but many companies are excellent at ensuring they aren't seen as commodities

As someone who just used computer use to successfully perform a "change of address" across 52 different services, hard disagree. It's magic.

5 days ago: 7M users

4 days ago: 8M users

3 days ago: 9M users

That's some incredible growth.

No way. It's simply another layer of abstraction. You don't code in binary, or assembly, or C, or vanilla JavaScript anymore.

Eventually "coding" will simply be prompting skill with the wisdom of architectural decisions.

That's also one way to describe what it's like to code with React et al these days, anyway. Component/hook selection skill with the wisdom of architectural decisions.

Consoles made sense as a product category where specialized graphics hardware was not generally available for consumer PCs.

This has almost never been true. GPUs existed, and were being used, before the N64.

Your comment also begs the question that the console consumer has transitioned to a gaming pc. They haven't. Gaming PC sales (and hardware) are at all-time lows, except for GPUs, which should probably be renamed to Model Training Units.

I would posit that what we're seeing is a reflection of a content problem, not hardware. Video games have gone the way of Hollywood, with sequels and derivatives, and an uninterested consumer base. People would rather watch a YouTube video of someone playing a video game than play a video game.

One tangible thing this doesn't touch on: SpeechAnalyzer supports streaming, so you can see what it's hearing from you as you talk. A massive UX improvement. Many of the other models force you to record, then it transcribes the audio to text as a single job, then returns the entire blob of text. It's slow, and frustrating if you're talking, only to realize it stopped listening after 2 minutes.

In my experience, the better long-term choice if you're going to vibe code an app is to use Expo.

Its basis is React, so the code output quality is much higher than Swift because there is much more React code in LLM training data.

Everything is in the command line, and debugging is a breeze because it's a web view. But once it's compiled to native iOS, it feels like any other native app.

Expo + Fastlane = fully automated iOS submission and deployment. I issue one command and see a new version in the App Store.

"People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me'. Dumb f*ks" - Mark Zuckerberg

Sometimes there are no consequences

Hence the fool's errand that is "alignment"

It's interesting that all models seems to be unbiased out of the box so far

This is really begging the question. If something relies on the perception of a human, it has bias. The data (or lack thereof) used to train models is per se a bias.

The mistake is assuming bias-removal is some virtuous goal to be achieved. It can't, and shouldn't. Alignment, while equally impossible, is at least a goal worth aiming towards.

Vibe coding is a software development practice assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) where the software developer describes a project or task in a prompt to a large language model (LLM) which generates source code automatically.

Based on this definition, yep, I've been vibe coding since 2023. The products were less sophisticated, and I was copying and pasting one function at a time, but it worked. More important: it was something I couldn't do on my own.

The modern version is that bonafide engineers accept AI-generated code. It's a good thing I'm not a bonafide engineer.

In the three years I've been vibe coding, it's the only way I've found to consistently and reliably build complex apps. How do you do it?

I wonder what the average battery life is on these

At least it's being used. There are many examples of tech over-adoption, like building out capacity for 1M concurrent users, only to see 50.

I'm not sure who this is for. It's a time trial style helmet, but isn't very useful for time trialing. And it's not a commuter helmet. And it's not a road riding helmet, as it has no breathability. Is this a defensive patent thing?

The glasses are a little rose-colored here. As if anything written <2022 were on stone tablets. LinkedIn slop was human generated before it was ai generated, but it was still slop.

The issue with content >2022 isn't that it's ai-generated per se, it's that it's still slop.

Boston Dynamics has been the dancing robot demo company since its inception. I guess they held out long enough to cash out on a hype cycle. Well played by them.

Are you saying that with today's hindsight, or would you be saying that at the time of its creation?

Thanks for your suggestion and kind words!

I love this idea; mixes creativity with practicality

"Revenue: 13.07b; cost of revenue: 7.5b."

This includes running inference for ~1b free users.

What is untrue about this?

Gemini's existence disproves this

My takeaway from this is that it's incredibly validating as a business model. Inference is _highly_ profitable. Of course, like any company that has ever tried to grow at breakneck pace, you run at a loss until you "win."

It's the most effective kind of security

Not a good analogy. Fable/Mythos are unsustainably expensive for Anthropic. They want/need the world to be nerfed to remain solvent. They didn't have to turn off -all- models

Sure, from the horse's mouth: https://x.com/darioamodei/status/2064781775247950326?s=46

In interviews, this week alone, Dario has gone on record repeatedly about wanting to slow AI progress.

Anthropic silently degraded AI-research queries to Fable (they changed course on this, but they still thought it was a good idea)

And now that the government is taking them at their word, they're trying to drag GPT-5.5 and OpenAI down with them

Yes, the administration is being heavy-handed, but unfortunatley it's the logical end of telling everyone you built a "nuke" and that it's possible for people to use it against us

I mean, it's literally what they've been asking for from day one.

This is marketing.

1. Release fable, highly nerfed and limited 2. See the compute capacity limiter pegged day after day 3. Lobby to the government, claiming ai is super unsafe and not aligned and they must do something 4. Government "forces" anth to turn off 5. Anth takes the pressure off of compute capacity, and gets to blame it on the govt

Like you're telling me fable is somehow an order of magnitude better than GPT 5.5 to the point where it compromises national security, despite evals and anecdotes saying otherwise? Nah.