epsteingpt

Since you seem to be earnest here: 1. Tesla single-handedly spurred the widespread consumer adoption of electric cars. 2. He's the first person to ever get rockets to orbit and back - governments had been trying for years.

Yes space satellites will be used for surveillance, but you should be much more worried about your digital footprint than your physical one.

I dunno - there are people to be worried about as supervillains maybe. Musk doesn't seem like the worst of them.

You can argue with his values, but his impact... harder to do.

Interesting argument, but wrong.

It's not obvious that there will be a single AI and that it will by definition concentrate power.

At a certain point - intelligence doesn't matter. Unless we're literally headed toward 1984 / matrix at which point it doesn't matter.

My guess is the argument for what we're doing is counterintuitively the opposite of what he's making.

Unless we go hard at the market - now - an authoritarian state actor who is willing to use the technology to fully silence and kill critics will win.

And boy, do they desperately, desperately want to win.

Yes, but many tried to build rockets and failed. Many if not all new, critical businesses are built with government subsidies. The question is whether those businesses ultimately help society.

With SpaceX and Tesla at least - it seems clear the answer is yes.

Correct.

There's a huge social element. No one wants to throw their buddies in jail.

It looks bad on the golf course (or at Burning Man / Sun Valley if you're in tech)

Impressed at the commentary here, which correctly points out Paul dodges the entire issue at hand.

Three things can be true: 1. Growing at a rapid rate over long periods of time is hard, doable and rewarding 2. Incentivizing the discovery of these things is good for society. 3. Nonethless there is and should be a limit to wealth acquisition, given moral hazard.

To make a similarly glib counterargument to Paul G:

If it's the founders who earned the same monetary value of the companies they created ("because they're responsible for it"), they should bear the same moral and legal responsibility for the externalities.

So far, only SBF is in jail. Lots more of these companies have broken the law.

Let's throw the founders in jail too - they can keep their money!

chickens -> roost

this is absolute slop, terrible, and beautiful in the way that all Fable work is beautiful, terrible, and slop.

goodbye.

This is a heartbreaking story and you can't imagine a more motivated founder.

Godspeed.

correct

but it's really bad news for the industry capacity if your best option is unproven space datacenters.

I don't think this is good news for the AI industry.

If they can't build enough capacity where their best option (and they're signing multi-BILLION dollar contracts) is an unproven 'datacenter in space' technology, we are toast.

- near term costs will go up (demand is greater than supply) - tokens shift from all you can eat (TOKENMAXXX) to ROI-driven - engineers with real orchestration skills rule and shift to lower cost optimization (deep seek) - Frontier AI unit economics collapse

The crazy thing is the 20000 accounts won't just be randoms, but some of the top accounts.

Uber engineers reported that loading their workspace and pulling recent commits exhausted that AI limit for Claude Code (4.8 x-high) immediately.

But the opt outs will, of course, be tracked. Choose to do it and it will go on your performance review.

basically

Your experience is 100% unrelated.

The PM (I know her) is juicing her results, that's all.

With pressure from her bosses and ultimately the CEO to show 'usage' in AI to raise $80B of capital (debt) to build more datacenter.

Unfortunately, those are the incentives of the system.

P.S. No offense to anyone involved - I wouldn't wish the bureaucracy inside Google to make a product change upon anyone. You've used (or tried) to use their cloud products right?

The irony that the packages system looks so obviously and clearly 'baseline claude' designed is a sign of the moment itself.

Why is anyone blaming the company management for 'selling high'.

AI real expectations are about as frothy as they'll ever be.

The latest models have legitimately taken senior coders from execution to agentic babysitting mode - something that was only a dream until last time.

There's a rumor of a $500M MONTHLY Anthropic Bill - that is the equivalent total compensation of 10-15 THOUSAND senior ICs (L5, L6). Imagine what kind of company can spend that amount and pay their staff and somehow 'see value'

The indexing argument is overblown. How many companies of the S&P could the average commenter here name? My guess is - charitably - 30. Yes, weighting, etc. but every indexer here is buying in hundreds of companies they have no idea about the business of, and all of a sudden some percentage goes to a tech company they know about and they want to comment.

Let these people run their victory lap!

Thank you. I (and others) do appreciate you commenting. I'm glad you are being part of the change. The attitude is useful and also naive.

Many ideologies are so 'hard won' (the price was so high) that they don't die easily.

You can see this concretely in the Middle East especially. In theory everyone could just start thinking and believing differently and achieve peace. The problem is it often only takes a single person to reopen old wounds.

Chinese and Russian and Americans are all the same - individually people are wonderful and have limited control over our day to day government activities. Have traveled the globe and know this - the individuals you talk to are amazing, even if you disagree.

Conflict can be repaired in the mind of the individual - it is the crowd's spirit that must be changed, and that is much harder.

AIs are bureaucrats, no more - no no less: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48321576

This is the AI bureaucrat theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48321576

Not going to be popular, but this article misses the point entirely.

The reason we are pursuing AI so quickly is the same reason we (the West, US) pursued the atomic bomb so quickly: not because having it was great (we've only used it twice), but because 'the other guys' having it is worse.

As bad as anyone thinks AI is for a free and democratic society with oligarchs, you can be assured that a future in a China or Russia controlled totalitarian AI state would be infinitely worse.

The US at least in principle values an individual human life, as judged by its conduct in roughly 3 centuries of conflict.

China and Russia emphatically do not.

It may be cold comfort when the terminator eventually comes for you, but I'd trust an American Skynet over a Chinese, North Korean or Russian one any day.

Agree. But Word of caution: MCP will become the 'company wiki' of the 2020s unless you enable monetization and distribution.

Right now you have to create an MCP but v1s are always easier to maintain than v10.

We're speed running a trap.

try recess or alpha school for approaches here that are well thought out and at least tested with kids.

Humanity is in middle of the most rapid capital accumulation and deployment in human history and using it to build the world’s largest and least accountable bureaucratic IT department

The work is very interesting. The title is misleading.

A better title would be: "all of human ingredients compressed into 1,800 primitives"

There is little to substantively nothing about the actual cooking: preparation methods, proportions, etc.

But the idea that tomato goes well with beef the whole world over is very interesting and useful for creating flavors that will go together, perhaps surprisingly. It will be a nice resource in the future.

for example - Books. We 'tamed' books early on by gatekeeping reading and writing.

Later even when the printing press was invented, we burned books. Certain book ownership is still illegal.

You must be talking about free societies my friend, because... good luck using the internet in Iran or North Korea.

Unrelated personal take: the tray screen is very nice. Great for changing navigation when your partner is helping you. There are some nice touches.

Exterior is not my style, but then again, I'm not the target.

The commentary seems pretty uninformed.

My strong guess is the buyer of the electric Ferrari is not your typical Ferrari buyer.

These same people probably criticized the Porsche Cayenne for 'not being fast enough' or 'lacking features that Toyota SUVs have'

The target buyer is probably more like Dubai housewife with kids.

They have a different aesthetic. They LOVE their iPhone.

Everyone hating on it probably needs to reconsider. There's almost 0 chance that a company like Ferrari did this to not embarrass Jony Ive.

They legitimately expect this thing to sell to its target audience.

MIT Grad - a few thoughts:

1. MIT is one of the 'better' run institutions.

2. Most academic institutions are hilariously lean compared to most companies. The problem is the administrative burden associated with record-keeping, compliance, and 'student experience.' All 3 of these could reasonably be automated or cut.

3. On record-keeping: AI should help reduce that eventually.

4. On compliance, professors and universities need to restore academic freedom, period. Students have been pushing for 'all views' and the university model just doesn't support that. Different viewpoints will diverge, and some students will need to be threatened. Imagine a communist yelling at a business school about the principles of capitalism; an atheist yelling that God doesn't exist at Harvard's divinity school. Senseless.

5. On student experience: this is the shot in the foot. Students obviously want to choose the best social experiences, but getting gourmet food, shuttles, and super-designed buildings is nice to have. The competitive admissions process is competitive, but the cuts are probably stepping down the arms race. One $30M building can fund a lot of grad students. Which is more important to the institution?

On the tax itself, given most University's objectively socialist leanings, they should be proud to take an 8% tax on the GAINS of the Endowment, which is over $2M per student.

The breathless "let's go to Washington" on - again - a lower tax rate than nearly any graduate pays on their income on their massive per student endowment while they and their students preach and promote socialist policies across the board is beyond parody.

Where do they think the federal "funding" comes from?

All to say I find the response mostly spineless - unwilling to tackle the real issues facing universities today. For an engineering school to say 'let's beg for funding on Washington' suggests a wrongheaded institutional approach, regardless of politics.

That's changing quickly, and Meta pays extremely well.

Not so easy for 3-4 year kids out of school to make $500K-$600K.

The supergenius quanty ones go to Jane Street and the smart product-y ones jump ship to OpenAI or Anthropic (e.g. Boris) but there just aren't 20,000 high paying roles out there.

Anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves.