We were stuck in the Gilded Age for decades before Roosevelt came along and started big trust-busting efforts. I expect a similar situation to play out here. We're probably in the middle of it in retrospect.
I wish I had a good answer to give you here. I really don't understand financial markets. I more so just have a basic understanding of history and technology - my individual stock purchases are mostly me taking my knowledge base and extrapolating into the future and trying to figure out what companies I think are likely to grow.
As you can probably guess, I mostly try to stick to low-cost index funds, because my above "strategy" is nothing more than gambling.
I'm curious as to what your answers to the question are?
... does it? Are you seeing something I'm not seeing? Number one is that this just doesn't appear to be true (non-lite versions beat it across the board it seems), number two is that this specifically is a low-cost bulk model and not a SOTA frontier model, of course the benchmarks are lower.
This is probably a hot take and I am by no means a financial expert and this is probably quite wrong. I personally think that attempting to value these companies using the same methodology as the history of all American companies is fundamentally wrong. Sure, some mom and pop small local regional business that overperformed is probably more likely to underperform. But when it comes to big tech companies, these companies are operating a data and capital flywheel that doesn't easily just slow down. I mean, you look at the history of these computer tech companies, especially software companies. They really haven't slowed down. Like, look at Microsoft. It's just been growing from the very beginning, pretty much.
What are you even talking about? Everyone knows that Anthropic is drastically subsidizing their plans. It's actually the exact opposite of what you're talking about. The costs are extremely high and the prices are actually what's being subsidized and cheap right now.
Yeah, it's not that computer use is the most theoretically optimal paradigm, but there's a reasonable case that given the constraints of modern software systems and how they're built, that it's the most realistically optimal paradigm.
It depends on what you consider ineffectual to mean. Ineffectual at making new products and innovating? Yes, definitely. Ineffectual at preserving business momentum and continuing to grow profits? Well, the latest numbers speak for themselves.
Is there really a killer app here though? I've tried it and I think the hardware is really cool, but it doesn't really strike me that any of the software justifies the purchase price.
Can you go into a bit more detail about what exactly it is that you are predicting? This is interesting, and definitely cuts against the grain that the rest of these comments are going with.
Wow, it's starting to seem like the choice is essentially between an intelligence cap that pops the bubble, and an increasingly chaotic and unpredictable cybersecurity environment with major hacks and exploits left and right.
This comment thread really has me thinking. Is it possible that we might be at peak "consumer AI" in terms of intelligence? If it's basically impossible to verify that security-proficient AI is used for beneficial purposes, then these frontier models might start being regulated like WMD. We end up with two tiers of models. Dumber consumer models that are essentially lobotomized to the point of being completely safe. And actual frontier models that are heavily scrutinized and regulated and treated like nuclear weapons.
I find it pretty hard to see how Meta could possibly catch up to the existing frontier labs. Distillation, I guess, if you want to go that route, but between the fact that they're already way behind and the constant deluge of negative press like this, it strikes me that they would straight up need an architectural miracle in order to actually be competitive.
The thing about all this is that there's not a chance in hell that Anthropic can retain control against the wishes of the USG. Like, the USG has the guns, simple as. They're not going to tolerate a private company controlling this technology.
Anthropic likely knows this and is merely performing a song and dance. They're auditioning to be THE frontier AI lab.
This article asserts a pretty strong, contrarian thesis... and then fails to dive into it whatsoever. The "evidence" consists of one paragraph of random insults towards major tech CEOs. I have to say, I found it to be a complete waste of time with zero useful insight to provide.
All I want the ability to talk to Siri while I'm in the car. My buddy's Tesla has this feature with Grok and it's actually really awesome. Let me have an on-demand CONVERSATIONAL assistant, meaning something I'd actually want to have a conversation with.
I don't disagree that theoretically there could be some kind of test ban treaty type thing. But the mere fact that the primary rhetoric we see from leaders is around "winning the AI competition with China", I personally can't help but interpret this as a sign that nobody in the US is even close to ready to come to the table ready to slow things down.
How do you resolve the security dilemma? A cursory knowledge of international relations shows why a "global pause" is basically impossible, and that's to say nothing of current international conditions. These Anthropic guys are smart, and so I can't help but think that this posture is nothing more than grandstanding to build up hype and attention ahead of the IPO.
I wish China didn't have such a hostile government to the West. Because I'd love to buy a BYD car and see this for myself, or try the Xiaomi car that MKBHD was so keen on. But because of the hostility I kind of get why there are bans.
Fair enough. I'm feeling more than a bit pessimistic right now to be honest, looking at the CEOs gleefully talking about how we're gonna have to find new jobs. Hopefully the pendulum does swing the other way again.
On the dress code, for me personally, unless I'm at home in commando sweatpants and a sweatshirt, there is always a low grade cognitive tax of me being uncomfortable in the garb that society deems acceptable to wear in an office. And I'm one of the lucky ones, I can wear khakis and a polo. My heart goes out to those poor Wall Street guys who are stuck in suits all day.
Office work removes corporate friction at the expense of personal friction (commuting, dress codes, etc), while WFH removes personal friction at the expense of corporate fiction in the way you've just described. It's an interesting dichotomy. Given who the power lies with in our society, I think we all know which one will win out in the long run.
This has got to be the most thin, vague, stupid article I've ever read. It doesn't go into specifics whatsoever, and just retreads the same points people have been saying since 2023. A complete waste of time and I wish I hadn't read it.