hagbarth

No you will still get access to newer models on the subscription. You should have access to Sonnet 5, which is new. It's just Mythos class models that are API only.

For now... You never know with these companies.

It was not.

Yes, but I don’t see either of those scenarios giving them the growth needed to justify a trillion dollar valuation. Especially with the current competition (a competitor releases a much better model, and they have to respond or see their revenue drop).

So I don’t see a company in immediate danger of collapsing, but I also don’t see a great investment at that valuation.

Well. $60b in bloated stock is probably much better than the $10b cash penalty for not going through with the deal.

The alternative is to be explicit when you nerf, so users know what they are working with.

Because 5 days is not enough for the market to discover the price of SpaceX. And the rules were changed so the float is weighted as if it was much much larger than it is.

Danish public broadcaster. Probably the best reputation in the world on Danish news.

Do you have any hard lines for what an AI should be able to generate for you?

> Do you have evidence for that?

Check the post history. It’s pretty obvious

I have no idea why they would do that. Outside blatant corruption, which we shouldn't discount.

Also if a person always wanted to write a book I don’t think prompting an AI will scratch that itch.

Except the models don’t actually compute anything other than text generation. The entire way they interact with computers is through the shell or other api layers on the OS

> and might be the renaissance for small to one person game studios.

Indie games are already bigger than ever as far as I know.

How so?

This isn’t a political move. It’s a pension fund derisking a small part of their investments by moving them out of a riskier asset.

For rentals I get that. We own 2 EVs and a charger at home. Easiest driving experience ever. We just plug it in.

Graphite predates AI code reviews. Obviously includes it now, but the original selling point was support for stacking PRs.

I've seen this statement before. I'm not sure why my nation winning AI, whatever that means (first to AGI?), is better for me than some other nation?

Ah yes, proving a negative. What makes you sure a stone is not capable of cognition?

Revenue is all up. And as far as I can see beating expectations.

> People think that because AI cannot replace a senior dev, it's a worthless con.

Quite the strawman. There are many points between “worthless” and “worth 100s of billions to trillions of investment”.

Sam Altman has been drumming[1] the ASI drum for a while now. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is the vision he is selling.

[1] - https://ia.samaltman.com/#:~:text=we%20will%20have-,superint...

If you read a little further in the article, the main point is _not_ that AI is useless. But rather than AGI god building, a regular technology. A valuable one, but not infinite growth.

I believe AlphaFold, AlphaEvolve etc are _not_ looking to get to AGI. The whole article is a case against AGI chasing, not ML or LLM overall.

"You're absolutely right!"

I agree with that. It's a bet they have to make. They are just in a worse position to make it than some of the other companies.

I'm not so sure. I, for one, do not think purely by talking to myself. I do that sometimes, but a lot of the time when I am working through something, I have many more dimensions to my thought than inner speech.

But Meta specifically needs returns from AI products to justify the capex. Google and Microsoft eg. have profitable cloud businesses from where they can rent out GPU compute. Meta’s bet is far more risky.

They will still need to learn to recognise if the output from AI is good or not.

Version control is different since it’s collaboration with the rest of the org.

The rest: if they are just as productive as others, I would not care one bit. Tool use as a metric is just bad.