felixgallo

I suspect an AI could design a purpose-built FPGA-like replacement that would be, for its purpose, significantly more effective than the current general-purpose FPGAs.

There's a dead comment in this thread by the fabled Don Hopkins, and the only reason I can imagine is that he commented, factually but negatively, on Elon Musk. Shameful comment-killing, just shameful.

You could just store it in a bloom filter, which would be non-public but also give you tunable accuracy. For 1 in a million false positives, a bloom filter would cost 28.8 bits per plate.

'OpenAI has closed many of its safety-focussed teams. Around the time the superalignment team was dissolved, its leaders, Sutskever and Leike, resigned. (Sutskever co-founded a company called Safe Superintelligence.) On X, Leike wrote, “Safety culture and processes have taken a backseat to shiny products.” Soon afterward, the A.G.I.-readiness team, tasked with preparing society for the shock of advanced A.I., was also dissolved. When the company was asked on its most recent I.R.S. disclosure form to briefly describe its “most significant activities,” the concept of safety, present in its answers to such questions on previous forms, was not listed. (OpenAI said that its “mission did not change” and added, “We continue to invest in and evolve our work on safety, and will continue to make organizational changes.”) The Future of Life Institute, a think tank whose principles on safety Altman once endorsed, grades each major A.I. company on “existential safety”; on the most recent report card, OpenAI got an F. In fairness, so did every other major company except for Anthropic, which got a D, and Google DeepMind, which got a D-.

“My vibes don’t match a lot of the traditional A.I.-safety stuff,” Altman said. He insisted that he continued to prioritize these matters, but when pressed for specifics he was vague: “We still will run safety projects, or at least safety-adjacent projects.” When we asked to interview researchers at the company who were working on existential safety—the kinds of issues that could mean, as Altman once put it, “lights-out for all of us”—an OpenAI representative seemed confused. “What do you mean by ‘existential safety’?” he replied. “That’s not, like, a thing.”'

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may...

when you say 'quite reasonably', you are aware that no-human-in-the-loop AI kill chains are war crimes, right?

That's not what happened here and you know this. It was, literal quote, "“[e]ffective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.”

no, because it's cockamamie bullshit that they're a supply chain risk on the same level as Iran, China, Russia and North Korea. And you know this!

thanks. Company, of course

You are obviously being disingenuous, because you are on a thread where the DoD is not just electing not to buy Anthropic's service, but also trying to bully them into submission with the unrealistic threat of the DPA, punitively and disproportionately trying to label them a national security risk, and invoking supply chain issues normally applied to our worst adversaries, for the first time putting an obviously patriotic American country on the same footing as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia.

Remember, the Anthropic red line was "no war crimes and no mass surveillance of the US population." You may think that war crimes are cool, and that mass surveillance of the US population by the department of defense would be fine, but consider the natural consequences, both for democracy and for any adversary's conduct in future wars.

'why not'? It's retaliatory beyond all proportionality, for one.

you understand wildly incorrectly; please go and do some research.

Anthropic's red lines were 'no fully autonomous AI kill chains' and 'no domestic mass surveillance'. Those are clearly not national-security or DoD functions in the first place, so why would they be in any way objectionable?

It isn't, and no.

That's a nonsensical website. A third party was responsible for both OpenAI's and Anthropic's model escapes. The difference is that Anthropic was warning that this might happen, and OpenAI was putting their head in the sand.

tell that nonsense to Huggingface.

I think any amount of 'paternalistic/controlling' turns out to have been justified when, after dismantling the safety teams and pretending not to know what safety is, OpenAI had the HuggingFace series of scandals. You can dislike the idea of safety and people talking about safety, but not only is the evidence right there, but OpenAI came out shamefacedly and literally agreed with Amodei's statements, including that they agreed to pace the frontier.

You'd rather literally support <i>Sam Altman>/i>? I mean, that's a position to take, for sure, but apparently several people still use Grok, so maybe it's not all that surprising.

"You literally cannot use Claude pro to build real software, unless you're extremely frugal with your prompts and don't try anything even a little ambitious" - that's way past ridiculous. Even just using Fable most of the time, working on several ambitious projects, I have a hard time hitting the limit with a Max plan.

are you really arguing that opus 5.5 beating the best of openai's models handily is worse than you expected? What exactly were you basing your expectations on?

in what way is beating every other frontier model with their own second-tier model, 'lower than expected performance'? Please be specific.

the prompt said that, so of course the anti-anthropic bot took it as literal truth.

the benchmarks provided are already from independent organizations:

Terminal-Bench 4.0 - Stanford & Laude Institute (with funding from all of the AI companies)

FrontierCode v1.1 - Cognition

CursorBench - Cursor (now SolarBoringSpaceXAI I believe)

GDPVal-AA - Artificial Analysis

AutomationBench - Zapier

Humanity's Last Exam - CAIS and Scale AI

Terminal-Bench-Science - Stanford, Laude, Ai2, Allen Institute

OSWOrld - XLANG Lab @ the University of Hong Kong

Chartography - Surge AI

If you read the page, Opus is now significantly better than Astra while also being cheaper and having more performance headroom available.

both things can be true. China's gearing up, but they also try to make progress by aggressively distilling Anthropic and OpenAI models, and this is currently where most of their progress comes from.

VCV Rack, hands down.

Because distillation is a friendly term for industrial espionage, and most other countries are not willing to become international pariahs in the eyes of the west.

that one is so bad that it almost sounds like an injection attack from the bastard child of the Unabomber and Elon Musk.

now imagine if we didn't even try, and instead had kids screaming for 'local nukes' because they wanted them, and the president didn't see what the problem was.

And yet we all have failed to die so far from nuclear holocaust, despite Russia being our dire enemy, because of a system of agreed controls and limits between even nations that hate each other.

Paid campaigns.

You have successfully optimized for fast, but you have not optimized for quality, extensibility, customer experience, or maintainability. Fast can be a great thing to optimize for, but there are many other situations where other optimizations are preferable.