peter422

A year ago AI wrote roughly 0% of my code and now it writes roughly 100%.

Which is to say any AI study from a year ago is fairly out of date with the speed of advancement.

Sacks has said so many obviously false things in reference to government actions (Jan 6th, Ukraine, etc) that there is no reason to trust anything he says.

If the Trump administration wants him to say something, he says it. Maybe what he is saying is true, maybe it isn’t. There is no way to know.

The story they are telling is exactly the same whether it was true or they were just shaking down Anthropic for no reason.

Anthropic just needs to donate millions of dollars to a “MAGA Inc” like Greg Brockman did and they’ll get regulated properly from now on.

It’s a perfectly good system for government regulation.

I agree. I’m a social person but I also like my purely functional conversations with LLMs, and I have a lot of them going at once!

Doesn’t replace conversations with other people but at the same time I feel no tax talking to the LLMs.

Also for all the people saying Amazon's part in this couldn't be fabricated, remember that Amazon is a "friend of the administration". During Andy Jassy's tenure, they paid $75MM (wildly outbidding everybody else) for a Melania documentary that grossed ~16MM, a move publicly defended by Jeff Bezos. Any neutral observer could see this was a wild overpay, and after the fact, a terrible business move. But that is not what Amazon said or continues to say. This was just a bribe with more steps to it.

When the government comes out and says this is due to something Amazon pointed out, even if that is a complete lie, they know that Amazon won't say anything publicly about it. Amazon wants to maintain their "friend of the administration" status that they paid a lot of money to get.

It is frustrating for all of us to have to think about our government like this, but if you just look at the reality of what is happening it is very difficult to trust not only anything the government is saying, but also anything companies aligned with the government are saying.

Anybody who isn't at least treating this situation as possibly just an authoritarian government picking winners and losers is not paying attention to the political environment.

Companies/countries/people are paying off the government in all sorts of various ways (crypto, gifts, bogus settlements, planes, inaugurations, ballrooms). The companies that pay off the government get big fat contracts and merger agreements, and the ones that don't get increased scrutiny, lawsuits and threats.

OpenAI and SpaceX are friends of the administration, and Anthropic is (politically at least), not friends with the administration.

Could this penalty be a rational and reasonable reaction to the new model? Perhaps. Or maybe it is just a made up excuse to do what the government wants to do, which is punish its political enemies. It wouldn't be the first, second, third or 10th time that has happened so far in this administration.

Well this administration is full of pathological liars, so what are their true intentions with this?

It is kinda amazing how quickly everybody else is to support authoritarianism if it agrees with some perceived slight of theirs.

I guess that is how it always starts.

The “TikTok ban” was a law passed by Congress that the Trump administration completely ignored until they arranged the sale to a political ally.

Both sides are not at all the same in how executive power is being wielded.

Be as upset as you want about Congress passing the law but that’s a 100x higher bar than what the Trump administration does regularly.

Can we at least debate the obvious externality that an insider might skew their advice or actions to personally profit instead of doing whatever they think is most appropriate for their job?

That seems like a big one

It’s clearly AI generated when you see 3 comments of similar style posted in the same minute.

Anyways ignore the people downvoting you, I don’t want to read AI generated comments even if they are seemingly reasonable. I appreciate you flagging the comment for me, I didn’t even suspect it. I can make my own AI generated content if I want it, I want to read thoughts and ideas from actual humans.

It is funny that my first reaction to your post was that you are crazy, but then I looked at his comment history and you are completely right. Boy this is not a good development. I don’t want to spend my time reading AI generated comments.

The reason the top pros like chess960 is because they don’t need to spend hundreds of hours of opening preparation, they can just sit down and play.

Caruana (the guy who lost to Magnus), mused in a podcast that chess960 feels strange as a competitor because he doesn’t really prepare (because there are far too many openings to study) and said it feels like he’s getting paid for much less work.

Fortunately before working hours on the west coast so it shouldn't impact that many people.

And what about the precedent it sets for other world powers?

Why shouldn't Russia or China just do the same and interfere with the leadership of countries they don't like.

Also it is impossible to argue the cost of the war in Iraq was worth the benefit, even if we agree Iraq is in a better place now then it was under Hussein.

I think at least the median citizen in the US has very good access to the best possible care. It may or may not be affordable but you can get it.

And yes, that is what I think we optimize for.

Perhaps my language was too imprecise.

My argument is that specifically the best care in the US is the best in the world. We have the best doctors and the best technology and the best treatments. This is not completely universal but it is also generally accurate.

Whether or not this care is accessible or the median quality is care is good, that is different.

I’m just saying we do get something for the money, it’s not like it all gets thrown down the drain. The best and brightest come to the US to get some of the huge spigots of money in the US healthcare system and it does drive innovation.

See what the wait times are for the specialists in other countries, if they even exist!

The US is also the 3rd biggest country in the world. It’s very hard to solve these things are such a massive scale.

A struggling business can go under.

When somebody is sick we generally save them even if the cost/benefit is poor. No market is going to solve this if you want to save sick people who don’t have a lot of money.

There is no place in the world where health care is solved, it’s one trade off vs another.

The US system is also far far from perfect but your solution is quite shallow and unlikely to fix things in a way society wants.

15 out of the top 50 and 4/6 top hospitals in the world are in the US: https://rankings.newsweek.com/worlds-best-hospitals-2025

Again, I’m not saying the health care outcomes are better, or the value is better. I’m saying the hospitals are nicer, the doctors are the best, etc.

Perhaps this is the wrong thing to optimize for! But we are getting something.

Your whole argument is that the health care system should be optimized for the most productive members of society (like you, right now).

You are perfectly fine to have that belief, but the majority of people disagree with you, which is one of the primary reasons the system is designed as it is.

The quality of health care in the US is significantly higher than anywhere else in the world.

Whether that quality is necessarily (or good) is debatable, but we are getting something for the money.

You also are just completely wrong in your main point. We cannot provide the same efficacy of healthcare as we are now for 60% less. We are the richest country in the world, labor costs more here than other places.

The only title that a founder can have that matters more than "founder" is a CEO.

He calls himself a CTO, and that's fine, but he's really just a technical cofounder, and that's what he's acting like (and it sounds like it's a very positive thing for the company).

The CTO title and the whole point of the article are not really relevant, this entire situation would not be possible if he weren't a co-founder.

I think it is a good lesson that founders shouldn't necessarily be pigeon holed into roles they don't want, but the CTO title really has nothing to do with it.

If your definition of “making money” is turning bitcoins into USD at bitcoins low point, and then paying that back to them in 2 years, alright.

You can have whatever opinion you want about the bankruptcy process, but FTX was most certainly insolvent, due to fraud, and at that point whatever happened after the recovery to make people as whole as possible (which for many was not even close) really shouldn’t get credited to SBF.

Stage 21 was a great example of how tactics can beat a stronger rider. Pogacar was probably the strongest but Matteo burned up his energy chasing attacks in the final lap and then at the right moment WvA was ready to pounce and take the stage.

I love the union syntax in 3.9+:

  new_dict = old_dict | update_keys_and_values_dict

The investors invested on a previous idea.

The fact that the other founders are deciding to pivot is just a luxury of the fact that the company has inertia, not value, which is why they are switching ideas.

Our OP doesn’t want to work on the new idea, the one that might have value, therefore he is entitled to very, very little.

You do not understand the economics of VC backed startups.

The issue has nothing to do with whether he worked hard, it has to do with the fact that the work the company did ended up being not very valuable, so much so that the company is doing something completely different.

Ultimately he created very little value and therefore is entitled to very little value. The company can just go out of business and start fresh!

Raising money is not value.

2-5% could be appropriate. 10% is completely insane.

If you rely on ‘cgi’ in your Python application, you are probably fine using 3.12 until mid-2028 when it stops being maintained (and probably beyond).

You guys are all really getting worked up over very little.

In my codebase in my proprietary project, it’s possible that LLMs write around half the code, but that’s just because a lot of the trivial parts of the project are quite verbose.

The really difficult and valuable parts of the codebase are very very far beyond what the current LLMs are capable of, and believe me, I’ve tried!

Writing the majority of the code is very different from creating the majority of the value.

And I really use and value LLMs, but they are not replacing me at the moment.