nonethewiser

But that's not what it's saying right? The quote says grandmasters and amateurs analyze the same number of moves. I mean it would kind of make more sense how you are interpreting it but is that actually what the quote is saying?

>the average chess grandmaster during a classical game will analyze roughly the same number of moves as an amateur player, but they analyze only the most critical moves

What does this mean exactly? They analyze the same number but the grandmaster analyzes "only the most critical moves."

So does that mean at every given analysis opportunity (each move I guess), they analyze better candidates?

If so I guess these 2 things are totally redundant? "they analyze only the most critical moves and do a better job with that analysis."

Alternatively I wondered if perhaps they actually perform analysis on less moves (perhaps because they already know the lines or remember their previous analysis). But I think that contradicts the claim that they analyze about the same number of moves.

What's your thesis on how their $125B in debt would bring down the whole financial sysetm?

>Supermarkets typically have 1% to 3% net profit margin. SaaS often has 70% to 85% profit margins

Different types of margin. 1-3% for groceries is net, 70-85% for software is gross.

We desperately need to ground these discussions in actual numbers.

This should help build some intuition and establish a baseline for what the $2T valuation means.

If you buy at $2T Anthropic needs to be worth about $3T by 2030 for a normal market return. That's ~25x P/E and ~$120B/year of profit.

That could be something like $400B of revenue at 30% net margins, $300B at 40%, or $600B at 20%.

It would take 1.7x revenue growth a year to get from today’s $68B run-rate to $400B by 2030. Anthropic's current growth rate is ~4.7x a year. Anthropic doesn't need to maintain that, they basically just need to prevent it from absolutely collapsing and hope margins hold up against open weight models.

You could look at this and say "yeah that's plausible" or "I highly doubt they achieve that" but it's hyperbolic to say its actually impossible they can meet this valuation, definitive proof of bubble, cant be worth this unless they can create God, etc.

Content curation will be overhauled for a world with WAY more content of lower average quality.

Heavily curated like this is one direction. Micro consumables (ala tiktok) supporting more impressions is another.

None of this rebuts what he said

Yes.

And its still true that its amplified more because Karpathy released it. Id agree its a pretty mundane idea and product.

I dont think there is any law the scheme breaks. People dont seem to be reading the article though.

The recent development is that there is now news that her team coordinated it. She previously stated under oath that they did not, which is opening up the door for perjury which is of course illegal.

> And the republicans have done this many times.

When have they coordinated getting a second person with the same name on the ballot to confuse voters?

Did you read the NYT article?

The recent development is that the former campaign manager admitted to the scheme. Before that it was strict denial that they coordinated it, including under oath.

Summary: The New York Times reported that Mary Peltola's Democratic campaign for Alaska's Senate seat recruited a candidate with the same name as Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan on the ballot, in a bid to confuse voters.

Or will confidently assert something that 1 person speculated about on Reddit

>How much of this is the current uncertainty over politics in the US?

Would you like to posit a theory? The article says nothing about this, and states entirely different causes. This concern seems rather tangential to recent market activity

The day is coming when we have widespread local inference on super powerful and efficient hardware and people will ask it what time the store closes, get distracted, and then ask it again instead of scrolling up.

>Don't fall for the spin. This is just an added cost they always wanted to add.

Maybe. But they didn't. And they didn't do it everywhere else that didn't pass this regulation.

And why shoulnd't NYC raise the minimum higher? That's $47k per year which is meager for NYC.

>Was Pets.com burning tens of billions of dollars per year? This comparison is not favorable to Anthropic.

You can't just look at burn rate.

Let's compare Anthropic and Pets.com and see who it favors.

Pets.com lost about $8 for every $1 of revenue. They paid $2.24 for every $1 of dog food it sold - dog food you could already buy in the store.

Anthropic lost about $1.70 per $1 in 2025, on a product that didn’t exist a few years ago. There revenue has since grown about 7x.

And my point doesn’t rely on this comparison, which I think so clearly favors Anthropic. Pets.com died, yet internet services are more widespread than ever. People even buy pet food online more than ever. If Anthropic folds, the models and the demand for them don’t go away with it.

I agree eventually but I was talking about within the next couple years.

Right but the philosophy regarding what intelligience is wasn't forced on them.

Arent you disagreeing with yourself? You say these people are just now wrestling with the question of what intelligence is despite it being a longstanding philosophical question. So it clearly wasn’t forced on them.

By that logic financial regulation is philosophy too but that makes the original comparison of financial regulation to philosophy non sensical. You’re shifting the terminology beneath out feet.

Law is downstream of philosophy. Youre forced to deal with conclusions that may be based in philosophy (or they may be arbitrary or self interested). Nobody makes you hold a position on mens rea. In that way you can ignore the philosophy.

>Do you believe that we're in an AI bubble?

I'd prefer to concretely define the term before answering this. It's loaded. I think "bubble" is generally thrown around way too liberally anytime something is goes up a lot.

It's possible that valuations will crash. I think it would be temporary though. I think something like the internet tech stock crash of the early 2000s is possible although I think the fundamentals are much better here. I would wager it wont crash anything like that. I mean, would you liken Anthropic to Pets.com? And keep in mind even with that crash the internet is more ubiquitous now than ever, and the major players then are not necessarily the major ones now. Anthropic and OpenAI can go under.

> What happens if Anthropic and OpenAI go under?

What would the implication of that be though? The AI models arent going away. The tech is still there.

>1. All modern LLMs are (in my eyes) inherently morally problematic.

Yes, I think this is a key point and I'm not surprised to hear it. It's a fundamental problem with AI. It's not something that will disappear as it becomes more useful or makes less mistakes.

How do you feel about a dependency that was written by AI? It seems like things will get progressively harder and harder to maintain a real boundary, outside of just writing everything yourself. And perhaps hosting.

And inclusive of whom?

Im really interested in seeing where the anti-ai crowd ends up in a few years.

Im sympathetic to the perspective in some ways but I think it's wildly impractical to actually try to keep AI out of software development.

I suppose an anti-ai optimist might hope for a future where AI written software proves too problematic over time and things return to their ideal vision of no AI in most software.

I really, really dont think that's in the range of possibilities. So what would be left?

- pockets of anti ai software

- these people slowly disappear or the window moves ("ai in software BUT ...")

- ai use is completely and thoroughly normalized

To be more specific, they added this fee in response to a NYC regulation mandating a minimum $22.13 for delivery workers. [0]

There is debate about whether or not Doordash needed to do this, if they are just being vindictive etc. But what we do know is that regulation came at a cost to NYC consumers. And it wasn't just Door Dash. Uber Eats added a $2 fee and Instacart added a $5.99 fee. New Yorkers can determine for themselves if they want to pay higher prices to ensure higher wages.

[0] https://about.doordash.com/en-us/news/changes-to-fees-nyc

Parts?

You just throw them away. They are consumer electronics.

I don't say this happily.

sure you do I've had several

Right so doordash buys you impulsiveness