swalsh

The classifier for biology is so broad it makes me wonder what kind of stuff mythos was generating. Anthropic is known to be a bit dramatic, but they wouldn't have released something this broad unless they saw the model cross a significant threshold that scared them.

Okay, work with me on this, because its a stretch.

The new businesses created, might look very much like the old businesses that disappeared. But they're not focused on scale and profits. They're focused on an ideal of pushing the boundaries. Maybe a single craftsman making small one off hand made pieces. Maybe a pizzeria that puts out a small quantity of the best pizza. Little individual pursuits towards perfection. Enabled because economics is not important. If physical AI and super intelligence can do "everything" (work with me here) you're free to do small scale things you love. You're also free to raise children at home, work on mega projects, explore the world.

The alternative is a small subset of an elite inherit the world's wealth, create a prison society of surveillance robots that keep the permanent underclass at bay with video games, tiktoks, and pills.

I have a composition scale, and regularly get vitamin d, and calcium tests (had issues with both) since taking the wegovy pill in Feb, I have not loss any bone density, and pretty minimal amount of lean muscle (i think any weight loss will have some lean mass loss). I have lost fat, kicked drinking, and my lipids improved dramatically.

This would be amazing for some of our "real-time" workflows, that need to fallback to AI for one reason or another. What used to happen is a rules based system did the majority of work, and occasional corner case would fall back to humans. Then we moved AI in, still not real time, but much faster. Cerebras could make that even faster.

This offends me, because I believe code is speech, and speech should not be restricted.

Imagine the East India Trading company advertising the TAM of the new emerging markets in the early 1600's. I bet the numbers compared to the old world would be enormous, and equally unbelievable.

IF, and yeah it's a gigantic really big IF... the future plays out the way people are envisioning it. It's future shock. Astroid mining, gigafabs, star ships launching hourly making space exploration cheap, satellite intelligence, physical AI. The world is going to be a completely different place IF SpaceX and the AI labs are successful. That TAM might be real. It's a literal moonshot, the stuff they're talking about sounds SciFi, but that's why the valuations sound SciFi.

That said, I would not invest anything into SpaceX that I wouldn't be willing to lose, and i personally would not invest until the lockups are free. Moonshots aren't in my risk profile.

There's issues where bad people with bad intentions use AI to do bad things. But to an extent the guardrails already built-in are sufficient. The real danger in AI is how it impacts society, our economy, and our perception of self worth.

I'm not afraid of rouge agents nearly as much as I'm afraid of us building a permanent underclass of people dependent on whatever scraps the people who devalued their labor decide the grace them with. I'm afraid of the security apparatus that will be built to keep this underclass in line.

The distilled versions miss the spark of the model. Its like they land in the uncanny valley of models.

"they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."

That might be one of the most important points in the post. Very troubling.

I'd assume it's not up to par with Qwen-3.5 then, which has been distilling Claude, and the quality of the model is probably a direct result of that.

Its amazing how quickly ive just become accustomed to being a max subscriber. I dont think I could go back to pro.

Open source models, especially qwen are pretty dang good. But its not opus 4.6, the evals dont tell the full story. I question the assumption open source models are 3-6 months out.

Fuck, I loved grok 4.1, it was a really capable model for the money.

I'd run agents consuming hundreds of millions of tokens for less than a hundred dollars.

Billions in revenue just before your IPO isn't a bad deal either.

There's always money in the giggawatt datacenter

Models are a commodity, let's say Elon actually figures out building datacenters in space, or maybe he continues to be the leader of building earth based datacenters. Probably better business to not have yourself as your only customer. Dogfood, and open it to all.

I have never come close to my weekly limit, but have hit my hourly limit frequently.

It amazes me how much people try to build AI systems relying on nothing more than the models knowledge. I suspect a great deal of "failed" AI experiments we keep reading are people just not having any idea how to use AI at what its good at.

Try running with Open Code. It works quite well.

Been using the model for a few hours now. I'm actually reall impressed with it. This is the first time i've found value in an image model for stuff I actually do. I've been using it to build powerpoint slides, and mockups. It's CRAZY good at that.

My understanding is GPT 6 works via synaptic space reasoning... which I find terrifying. I hope if true, OpenAI does some safety testing on that, beyond what they normally do.

I had no idea one could buy a Blackhawk for $1.5M

Its coding to coding. I could care less how the model is architected, i only care how it performs in a real world scenario.

I gave the same prompt (a small rust project that's not easy, but not overly sophisticated) to both Gemma-4 26b and Qwen 3.5 27b via OpenCode. Qwen 3.5 ran for a bit over an hour before I killed it, Gemma 4 ran for about 20 minutes before it gave up. Lots of failed tool calls.

I asked codex to write a summary about both code bases.

"Dev 1" Qwen 3.5

"Dev 2" Gemma 4

Dev 1 is the stronger engineer overall. They showed better architectural judgment, stronger completeness, and better maintainability instincts. The weakness is execution rigor: they built more, but didn’t verify enough, so important parts don’t actually hold up cleanly.

Dev 2 looks more like an early-stage prototyper. The strength is speed to a rough first pass, but the implementation is much less complete, less polished, and less dependable. The main weakness is lack of finish and technical rigor.

If I were choosing between them as developers, I’d take Dev 1 without much hesitation.

Looking at the code myself, i'd agree with codex.

Try using Grok 4.1 reasoning. It's crazy cheap, and really it's not that bad.

Neurons that fire together, wire together. Your brain optimizes for your environment over time. As we get older, our brains are running in a more optimized way than when we're younger. That's why older hunters are more effective than younger hunters. They're finely tuned for their environment. It's an evolutionary advantage. But it also means that they're not firing in "novel" ways as much as the "kids". "kids" are more creative I think because their brains are still adopting, exploring novelty, neuron connections aren't as deeply tied together yet.

This is also maybe one of the biggest pitfalls as our society get's "older" with more old people, and less "kids". We need kids to force us to do things differently.

Oh i've been looking for a project for my 11 year old... he's a very project oriented learner, which schools don't seem to do anymore.

Speak for yourself, I have never thrown away code at this rate in my entire career. I couldn't keep up this pace without AI codegen.

I bet claude was hyping this guy up as he was building it. "Absolutely, a rust compiler written in PHP is a great idea!"

I believed that too until I watched the Karen Read Trials. The judge had a bias, and it was clear karen got justice despite the judge trying to put her finger on the scale.