combobyte

> yes

oh my god

I question it, and I think any reasonable person should question it as well. There's no evidence whatsoever that LLMs have ANY sensory experience, pain or otherwise.

If anyone out there genuinely believes that Silicon Valley is going to solve nuclear war, then I have a hard drive full of NTFs to sell them.

I think this is a pretty bad take. How is anyone going to cultivate that personal taste, judgement and experience when all of their media is homogenized slop, all of our their work is done for them by agents, and all of their questions are answered by LLMs?

People who grew up without LLMs still have it, for now, but for how much longer? Deskilling is already becoming a serious problem and it's only going to get worse the longer people continue to delegate their intelligence to machines that can't even think.

Language design and implementation is much more in the realm of actual computer science than it is "tech"

Speculative mania.

The AI industry continues to struggle to get over that hump in the hype cycle where the name matters more than the actual product.

Why build one hammer and use it forever when you could pay $100 a month to build a new hammer every time you need to hit a nail?

Happy to ditch Google, full stop.

You really have no sense of irony, do you?

> Criminal law places a lot of emphasis on intent

Then why the hell aren't we prosecuting the people who keep saying "this thing I'm building will probably end the world"?

> Make it make sense.

40 years of regulatory capture and a gerontocracy that doesn't understand nor care to understand the technologies they write laws about.

> model

> creative

Choose one.

> the fact the sellers introduced the friction in the first place strongly suggests it will just come back again in some other form

Guarantee they'll introduce some dynamic pricing shenanigans where they charge more when they identify that the shopper is an AI agent. Unsupervised AI with access to your credit card is basically the perfect target for price gouging.

Every time I'm presented with AI-generated text I feel like I'm staring into the Uncanny Valley

They're probably losing market share. The only time you ever see tech companies make consumer-focused changes is when those consumers are jumping ship to go somewhere else in large enough numbers to matter.

It's almost like the whole thing is designed on vibes.

It feels like there's should be some sort of "demonstrable intent to do harm" statute on the books for situations like this.

If you have a genuinely-held belief that AI systems will end life on earth and you willfully continuing working on them anyway, then, like... you probably shouldn't be allowed to walk free in civil society anymore, right?

This is basically already the case in the flourishing indie space, but for different reasons.

The only developers chasing cutting-edge hardware features are the AAA studios and I honestly think a lot of them would just die before successfully relearning how to make games that play well instead of just look pretty.

I'd argue we've been in an "everything-has-an-API" world for a long time now — it's just that discoverability of said APIs is still crap.

It must be tuned for rage-based engagement because Claude only ever uses the most obnoxious Claudisms on me despite constant reminders to knock it off.

When was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes?

Those second-order effects are easy to mitigate with sensible public policy. And it's not like we have to invent the solution from scratch — we've done it before, very effectively.

Being embodied is not the important barrier to running experiments. It's having access to a body of resources (i.e. funding and infrastructure).

But has it hacked anybody yet? Feels like xAi is behind on the hot new benchmarking meta.

Why do hammers put up with being smashed into nails all day?

What a miserable, misanthropic take

I don't see how merging or colluding fixes their problems, though. Both companies burn cash at historic rates because inference costs a lot more than people want to pay for it. Even if they somehow manage to crowd out any competitors and fix the price of AI, that price can't be much higher than it is today or people will just decide to stop paying for it.

No amount of collusion can solve the core economics problem of compute.

> We like money, and Anthropic should stay in a position to make loads of it despite any competition.

In a position to lose loads of money, maybe.

Even without China eating their lunch, there's zero reason to believe Anthropic will ever be profitable.

World's greatest IP thieves propose crackdown on IP theft

It was originally called "OpenClaude" before Anthropic told them to knock that off. Pretty sure "OpenClaw" was eventually picked just to be petty.

YaaS — yes-men as a service