jsnell
Because the limiting factor for software has always been the supply, not the demand. When the average human engineer would ship 100 lines of production code / week, you could only afford to do the most critical things. But if code gets cheaper to produce, the projects that were marginal become worth doing, and the projects that were obviously insane become marginal. And that's exactly what is happening as models get cheaper and better, leading to the frontier of worthwhile projects expanding rapidly.
> And what are all the engineers doing when (besides the model quality) their products don't seem to be changing very much?
That's got some nice But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? energy to it!
But amazingly, they might not be the biggest morons of the story. This data center will make Google billions in profit per year. What beancounter is choosing to jeopardize that for avoiding $3M/year in taxes? How out of touch do you have to be to be to make that call, and why does that person still have a job?
Likewise if models become commoditized, it's raising the value of the existing hardware (you'd expect the hardware owner to keep a bigger slice of the surplus when that's the scarce component).
For model improvements to be bad for the value of hardware, what you'd need is for demand for intelligence to be inelastic. But everything we've seen so far suggests that is not the case: the demand for intelligence (whether human or artificial) is highly elastic both in price and in quality.
But instead the article is effectively the Gravitational Pull of Pepsi[0].
[0] https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...
It just wasn't clear exactly what the error was (e.g. was a projection of a $70B ARR by end of year being misinterpreted as $70B ARR now -- that would have been stupid, but less stupid than the "investors added a fudge factor to the numbers" story that they're now going with).
The not-in-service numbers on the financials are just the normal lag, and have been stable in proportion to capex for years, to well before the start of the boom.
> The chips in the proposed deal were bought or leased by Amazon. They are installed in more than a dozen US data centres across five states, including Nevada and Virginia, the report said.
The "warehouses full of GPUs" thing might be the most absurd of the AI economy conspiracy theories.
Big businesses really do not like to talk about their products being harmful or dangerous, and there is ample evidence to that. Danger only sells in artisanal quantities to niche audiences.
Climate change is just a scam by the fossil fuel industry to hype up their market cap. Look at the power of co2, and the damage it can do without even trying.
Medicines being pulled during trials or after public availability for side effects are just Big Pharma making their products more desirable via scarcity.
Boeing did really well out of the 737 max. Airlines were just lining up to buy an airplane that could give the passengers an experience they would remember for the rest of their life. That's why they absolutely made clear that it was their product that was dangerous, rather than blaming operator error.
They did not task the agents with hacking into systems. Not monitoring for that was a mistake, but maybe a forgivable one the first time around. The subsequent coverups are inexcusable.
> This is why it smells like marketing
It doesn't. "Our product commits felonies" is not marketing. If something is marketing, you don't engage in repeated coverups of the true extent. If something is good news, you don't release it on a Friday evening (in this case) or wait for 3rd parties to find and publicize the evidence (the past cases).
A year ago I would have described that group as AI skeptics or AI deniers depending on how charitable I felt on any given sany. At this point AI truthers seems more appropriate.
https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-5#intelli...
It is most of the pareto frontier.
No? That quote is clearly saying the opposite of your summary.
This is like a web page asking for your email password to check password strength, promising that it won't leave your browser. Maybe it doesn't right now, but who knows about tomorrow.
The obvious outcome of this plan would be frontier models not being released at all to public It'd be an amazingly bad outcome. Models accessible to the public would stagnate (no capital, no access to frontier model tokens to distill from), while internal models would keep improving at their previous pace, use them in-house, and eventually eat the whole economy.
But he is wrong on the facts: these incidents were not merely the models already being in a infosec context and escalating beyond the intended parameters. They happened also with no kind of security elicitation. So the task was something like searching the internet for economic statistics, not to hack into a system.
It seems impossible to believe they didn't know. This must be the same training run the HF incident was about, and this should have lit up like a Christmas tree in the investigation. How many more incidents do they know about and didn't disclose?
That is not your voice. That is the most Opus 5 writing imaginable.
But thanks for at least stating right up front that it was AI-generated slop rather than at the end. (Still flagging it.)
Of course usually hand-picked boards don't go against their benefactor, and they're not keeping their seats.
That they did in this case says something about just how bad the situation must be.
The mortality rate from those diseases was higher than today because the population had no immunity at all, leading to both higher transmission rates and higher mortality rates. This would be true of an engineered virus as well.
And it wasn't just the one virus, it was an entire continent's infectious disease arsenal landing in overlapping waves. Again, something you'd do if you were trying to maximize damage.
So I don't find the bulk of the article about it being impossible for a virus to have this effect all that compelling.
This is a case where we normalisation of deviance has not yet started biting. And as long as the community manages to make it clear what the norms are and enforce them, we can keep it that way.
Now, if 25% of the frontpage was LLM prose at all times, the site is probably unrecoverably dead. Which is why at least I personally flag anything that I think is ai-written and Pangram concurs. (And write a comment to the effect, or upvote an existing one.)
And it doesn't matter if you say that the ideas were your own, and just the prose was LLM. We can't tell what the idea mix was. But we can tell whether you weren't willing to do your own writing. If you want people to put in the time to read your ideas, human writing is the signalling you need pay for.