mrbungie

From you can tell from they long-term strategy they are not marketing geniuses, but rather they try to signal are "moral geniuses". That's the game they are playing, I don't really know if it is going to work or not.

Can't wait to have LLM generated physical objects that explode on you face and no engineer can fix.

> Lab executives insist that serving tokens is profitable.

Maybe marginally profitable, but right now they need to give out subsidies for people to use their products (Antigravity, Codex, Claude Code et al) in an actually useful manner that prevents churn and at the scale they need to justify usage growth forecasts, which they need to keep the wheel turning.

Probably if you look at the users who exclusively use the simple chat box interfaces (i.e. ChatGPT, Gemini in UI, Claude in UI) plans it is actually profitable, but I'd also say that's not where most of the usage comes from.

I'd love to actually look at both usage + profitability from each user segment to see if their PxQ growth expectations from non-enterprise usage make any sense.

> Many independent providers price tokens of open-weight models at a fraction of Anthropic's prices.

Are those open-weight models as good as Anthropic? Are they the same parameter class?

> The premise is an interstellar mission, species level extinction risk, first contact, scientific problem solving. The film frames this through cute banter, soft sentiment, and quips that shrinks the movie scale.

God forbid showing the humane side of both tragedies and big stakes missions in an aesthetically pleasing and humorous way.

> So it treats a genuinely huge science fiction premise in a disney type emotional level. The humor feels adolescent and tonally deflates the stakes. Instead of using first contact, isolation, and extinction level danger to create awe or intellectual depth, it turns them into a cute, reassuring buddy experience.

I'd say that's exactly what makes the movie charming for the "masses" and it's OK if you are not into that, but don't make it sound like it is an absolutely terrible movie just because it does not comply to your definition of a good scifi movie.

Afaik Anthropic still loses money for their main product in this space: Claude Code and their Max plans.

But then there is no safe way for them to "mortally wound" the software industry. The full argument is moot.

I would add there are more reasons why this wouldn't work: costs due to OOM more usage, adoption/AI backlash, adversarial environment, players with big head starts (Google).

How would they mortally wound the software industry as of today?

I find their software to be of subpar quality and resilience anyways.

I remember studies that showed that being mean with the LLM got better answers, but by the other hand I also remember an study showing that maximizing bug-related parameters ended up with meaner/malignant LLMs.

I can't really tell if this is sarcasm or not.

Fair enough, I should've said borderline decent.

The same way niche/luxury product and services compare to fast/cheap ones: they are made with focus and intent that goes against the statistical average, which also normally would take more time and effort to make.

McDonalds cooks ~great~ (edit: fair enough, decent) burgers when measured objectively, but people still go to more niche burger restaurants because they want something different and made with more care.

That's not to say that an human can't use AI with intent, but then AI becomes another tool and not an autonomous code generating agent.

(Not GP) There was a well recognized reproducibility problem in the ML field before LLM-mania, and that's considering published papers with proper peer-reviews. The current state of afairs in some ways is even less rigourous than that, and then some people in the field feel free to overextend their conclusions into other fields like neurosciences.

They don't have the know how (except by proxy via OpenAI) nor custom hardware and somehow they are even worse at integrating AI into their products than Google.

Was this "paper" eventually peer reviewed?

PS: I know it is interesting and I don't doubt Antrophic, but for me it is so fascinating they get such a pass in science.

Opportunity costs: Would you rather pay 100 bucks for making more money or for your foss projects?

The same can be said of your time, but here we're talking about scale benefits due to LLMs (i.e. lots of SaaSs dying due to lots of "full featured f/oss projects").

> full featured f/oss alternatives.

Assuming this comes from lower barriers of entry to software engineering skills at scale with LLMs, this is still begs the question: Who will pay for the tokens? One thing is giving away your free time for passion, other one is giving away money.

Maybe we'll see a future were people crowdsource projects supporting them directly via donations for tokens/LLM queries.

> What's Anthropic's optimization target??? Getting you the right answer as fast as possible!

Are you totally sure they are not measuring/optimizing engagement metrics? Because at least I can bet OpenAI is doing that with every product they have to offer.

If you are really good and fast validating/fixing code output or you are actually not validating it more than just making sure it runs (no judging), I can see it paying out 95% of the time.

But for what I've seen both validating my and others coding agents outputs I'd estimate a much lower percentage (Data Engineering/Science work). And, oh boy, some colleages are hooked to generating no matter the quality. Workslop is a very real phenomenon.

Yet even Anthropic has shown the downsides to using them. I don't think it is a given that improvements in models scores and capabilities + being able to churn code as fast as we can will lead us to a singularity, we'll need more than that.

My late grandma learnt how to use an iPad by herself during her 70s to 80s without any issues, mostly motivated by her wish to read her magazines, doomscroll facebook and play solitaire. Her last job was being a bakery cashier in her 30s and she didn't learn how to use a computer in-between, so there was no skill transfer going on.

Humans and their intelligence are actually incredible and probably will continue to be so, I don't really care what tech/"think" leaders wants us to think.

Pretty edgy response. I'd say trying to scale in price rather than in quantity is a bad business strategy for tech period, specially if you hope to become Google-sized like OpenAI and company want.

Why would you need a GPU for an AI managed instance? I guess it would useful for some workloads, but arguably not for most really.

Well, this is a good example of "Shareholder value != customer value".

Great, can't wait to balance the ultra-pro-AI views I get everyday from mainstream media, X, Hacker News, Reddit, etc.

They took the stupidest metric ever and made a moronic target out of it.

> Anyone who still keeps implying these are statistical parrots or whatever is just going to regret these decisions in the future.

You know this is a false dichotomy right? You can treat and consider LLMs statistical parrots and at the same time take advantage of them.

Well OpenCode already exists and you can connect it to multiple providers, so you could just say that the agentic CLI harness business model as a service/billable feature is no more. In hindsight I would say it never made sense in the first place.

Antigravity also gives access to Opus 4.5, and OpenCode lets use Antigravity APIs too.

Sam wants so bad for OpenAI to be a proper big tech company, probably one that's more culturally similar to Apple-y than Google/MSFT-y so I guess they are cargo-culting some parts of Apple. That website reminds me of a very low quality version of Apple's myth-making ala Think Different. Ive is obviously also a big part of the cargo cult.

You should steel-man the argument. GP is talking about qualia, obviously for the sake of the argument you assume the comparison is between two people with similar eyes.