One of the more risible parts of this fiasco is that they publicly cloned Brave, then publicly committed all the changes they made. Here's a commit stripping the Brave logo from some poster and changing the color template.
Wolfram's problem is mindset IMO. There's a certain kind of highly intelligent mind, but because of fame, money, habit or personality, makes them intellectually lazy. Instead of doing the proofs, research, careful discussion and reconceptualizing that leads to useful theories and conclusion, they jump straight to the end, because they think they're smart. This produces some impressive sounding theory, but which upon closer inspection proves to be to be too vague to actually be testable, if not contain outright errors. People I put in this group including Wolfram and his computational theories, Langan and his Cognitive Theoretical model of the Universe, and the Italian school of algebraic geometry. There's a kind of interesting perception here. A reasonable person thinks one who makes correct theories is an intelligent man. Others think they are intelligent, so therefore their theories are correct.
It is a difficult question to answer. For example, why did Google acquire YouTube in the early 2010s? A platform technically and engineering wise similar to YouTube would have been very easy to replicate. IMO the best explanation goes back all the way to the days of Standard Oil/Carnegie Steel company - and quite possibly even the East India Company. There's an enormous benefit to consolidate various businesses under you and create a monopoly. Today in tech, monopolies are far from being as straightforward as being the dominant producer of a commodity like oil or steel. But there's undoubtedly some similar mechanisms involved. Synergy is one way to put it, but I think it's too restrictive.
I think the other part of the equation missing is if Google did create their own Wiz, Wiz would still be on the market, and it'd be a bitter fight which they could very well lose.
I 90% meant that it was the skills, industry knowledge and connections/reputations they built before Wiz, but it is true that most companies are conceived and planned far ahead of their actually registrations. Sensible people don't exactly just quit their jobs and start a company in a few days. They conceive, do research, discuss and (I suspect in Wiz's case) prototype before they commit. Its definitely a smart move, there's a very real valuation and PR advantage if you delay your actual founding, so your time to X revenue looks shorter.
There is actually some drama between Wiz and Orca, a company founded one year before Wiz. Orca alleged Wiz copied them, and Orca does operate in the same space. But a lot of hundred billion dollar companies are built on moats, integration and switching costs.
Would also be interested in this. I don't know anyone who uses Wiz. Google says they had 350 million in revenue last year, aiming for 1 billion this year. So 100x revenue TTM. Crazy stuff.
~5 years by now. But there is a bit of fine print. The founders all founded another cloud security company in 2010, which was acquired by Microsoft. They were all graduates of Israel's famous Unit 8200. So while the literal company was founded in 2020, it is very likely a lot of both the knowledge, expertise and quite possibly product was already in development before it.
To try to avoid the inevitable long arguments about which benchmarks or sets of them are universally better: there is no such thing anymore. And even within benchmarks, we're increasingly squinting to see the difference.
I wouldn't necessarily think so. There's still enormous room for quantization and hardware optimization, which China has proven to be world class at. And a lot of spend is really on R&D. For the same reason I believe if OpenAI waned to they could break even in a year
Based on what Altman says and leaked reports, OpenAI is actually losing money on every new user. Unlike traditional software, maintaining a SOTA AI service doesn't scale. The conundrum he faces is he can either quantize models and slash R&D to try to turn a profit now but lose the SOTA race, or keep pumping money and hope the rest bleed out. He's opted for the second, having raised 10B in 2023, 6.6B in 2024 and reports of another raise in 2025. He's probably trying desperately for the middle ground where an explosion of high price subscriptions replacing workers massively boost his revenue. So he's also reportedly projecting revenue 4x to 13B this year.
I watched this recently. I was stunned at the level of complexity, themes and storylines coming from a kids movie. The list of highest grossing movies typically are far from great movies because they gross so much by appealing to the lowest common denominator. But Ne Zha really deserves to be there.
This sounds way, way out of how LLMs work. They can't count the R's in strarwberrrrrry, but they can cross reference multiple tables of data? Is there something else going on here?
One of the marvelous things about Discworld is that although it is absurd, it is one of those logical abstractions of technology I've seen. For example he describes in an incredibly lifelike way the clacks system (basically a kind of internet) and it's many properties - the network effects of internet infrastructure, it's used in commerce, the importance of information, the "hackers" who manipulate it, etc. Discworld is almost really hard scifi sometimes.
It seems that way but I think it's quite possible in tech for things to rapidly change. E.g. if OpenAI starts quantising all their models, which can maybe reduce their compute costs by 80%, it would be profitable, but make some number of customers leave. Certain other headwinds like decreasing cost of cost per teraflop helps them.
Like Uber I suspect their business model is simply to capex until all their enemies are dead, then jack up prices.
Not an expert on law, but isn't there some mechanism to get policemen to stop DOGE while he's being sued? Like I imagine if I started taking down traffic lights the police would stop me then ask questions.
What I'm astounded by is how Musk/DOGE haven't been stopped, sued or even arrested. Isn't this interfering with the proper functioning of government, or vandalism, or gross negligence, some other illegal act?
I read this too but there was no source on this. The founder Liang Wenfeng himself comes from Zhejiang university. Its admissions rate is 20%, which is much higher than traditional US "elite" schools. Wenfeng has said this about hiring though:
"If you are pursuing short-term goals, it is right to find people with ready experience. But if you look at the long-term, experience is not that important. Basic skills, creativity, and passion are much more important.”
There's hilariously nothing open about OpenAI, and that was the plan from the start. From the email by Ilya Sutsekver, OpenAI was always going to keep all it's research and code as proprietary information. Open supposedly meant the benefits would be shared. So they basically just became a SaaS with a free tier, like most of them. Musk was right when he called them out for fishing for money as if they were a non profit, but always had plans to become a company
Is this number right? 400 million? If 400 million go there, how does the infrastructure support it? The article mentions 175k tents which sounds like a few orders of magnitude too little.
I second this. Time spend is Pareto distributed, and you spend most of your time doing something because you don't know something. Research, homework, coding, you spend the most time caught in a loop for something you don't know.