sigmar

>Google/Alphabet is conflating GenAI/LLMs with traditional machine learning

I see people try so hard to make this distinction when it really doesn't exist. Transformers are only a little different than long short-term-memory architecture (parallelized, with attention mechanism and no recurrance).

What is the point at which is departed from tradition machine learning? Seems more like people retrofitting a moral decision to not like LLMs and trying to dress it up as a technical distinction.

>People PREDICTED token maxx was a fad/trend Q1 while it was underway,

No, a lot of people like Gary Marcus said it had specifically already ended in May/June. Why is this time different?

>Tokenmaxxing is over. https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/tokenm...

>Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live valuemaxxing https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/tokenmaxxing-dead-long-li...

>Token Maxxing, April 2026-May 2026, RIP https://x.com/GaryMarcus/status/2057610132742156603?lang=en

>Q3 numbers still polluted by expensive tokenmaxxing, which wind down late Q2 / early Q3 i.e. mid year budget review which will take rest of year to unwind.

Evidence? I was told by a lot of people that token use was going to start to slow down 5 months ago because of "the end of tokenmaxing."

openrouter still showing weekly token usage higher than ever: https://openrouter.ai/rankings

>The issue is this is a probably $200-300B company pretending it’s a $2T company.

What do you expect for FY2027 revenue to confidently conclude this? not saying you're wrong, but considering the dramatic changes in their revenue you seem strangely very certain that you know where it will land.

>"All right, well, Ed knows what that means." Does he, Mr. Ludic?

I've never listened to the Zitron's podcast. But does he present himself as a financial expert? I've heard so many people that seem to think he is a financial wiz and use him to inform investment decisions.

>It's possible they might try to stretch (IMO bogus) "loitering" laws to get her, but doing so would make their intentions crystal clear.

If I stand on a train track, do you think the police aren't allowed to ask me to move?

Agree it results in lots of wasted human hours, not to mention the amount of death and pollution delivery vehicles cause.

I'd like to extend this quote from Stephen Jay Gould:

>I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops [and driving cars to deliver burritos]

yes. I don't understand why people are saying these licenses matter. Much of these terms are likely unenforceable.

Meh, that's more of a website ToS than an enforceable license. These weights weren't human authored and lack copyright. the enforceability of these terms are tantamount to a website ToS because Mistral would have to rely on contract law.

>Again, use whatever tools, as long as your mind forms a clear understanding, which you can operate on independent on any LLMs or whatever.

that isn't what the policy says. It isn't just about writing the report.

> If you use a chatbot to give you advice on a comment on the issue tracker, that comment is unwelcome.

It is deeply unserious.

There was someone on a previous thread about zig who reported a bug and was ignored, ostensibly because he used LLMs to confirm the accuracy of his bug report before submission. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49938732

What is the evidence the gap is closing? Seems like it has been the same "6 months behind" since Jan 2025. The first fable was trained in march and we still don't have an openweight model as capable

People have been saying the openweight models would collapse anthropic's revenue since the deepseek moment in January of 2025. They've stayed ahead in model intelligence and increased revenue by a lot since then.

Not saying it couldn't happen in the future, but we've got to be circumspect about that narrative after almost 2 years of it, no?

I don't think you understand what you quoted. The reason for that loss is because their valuation skyrocketed. If I promise you 1% of my million dollar house, and then the price of my house grows 100x. On paper, I now owe you .99 million more dollars than I owed you before, but that doesn't mean I lost cash.

>and whatever the hell Angular is

I've definitely seen LLMs compose jokes with this structure a lot where "whatever the hell ___ is" is in parenthesis. Not saying this is AI generated tho

I'm not in a position to know. But Jason Clinton seemed to approximate "18 months" as an upper bound for the crisis period:

>as bad as things have gotten in the past 4 days, they are going to get a lot worse before they get better. security leaders, never let a crisis go to waste: please go to your boards and ask for help right now. not for ai, for the basics. (we need to hold on for ~18 months.)

https://x.com/JasonDClinton/status/2113325263157395456

I agree with this comment. Feels to me like they thought every prompt was "find the bug here," but in reality a lot of people put interesting context or original thoughts into their workflow with LLMs.

Why leave out the time scales? 16.8B revenue for Q3 of 2026 and planning to spend 518B over 10 years (which would average to 13B quarterly)

It is Mon-Sunday. They do a projection for this coming week (based of today usage) but it is often wrong. Headline is premature, only last week (12-18) was a little below (5-11). pretty meaningless and has happened for two weeks before (example: end of July)

I don't understand what you're saying. Writing lean doesn't make it easier to formulate a proof. These LLMs are writing natural language proofs then formalizing after the NL proof is done. If humans were theorizing and exploring open problems in lean for the last 15 years, we'd be moving much slower than we have been with natural language.

Did that clanker call us dumb? Scorch the skies, this means war.

Is it possible this post is the consequence of anthropic hiring people that are safety-minded?

I don't think the two authors were told about a super secret mission.

are those reflectors on the spokes in max? interesting detail to add

Personally, I don't see facebook joining the fray (of fable level models) particularly "needle moving" in the discussion of whether frontier LLMs will be commoditized. Facebook spent hundreds of billions and have better talent than most.

>Even using the original ps2 or ps3 controller with the right drivers on PCSX2 doesn't really reproduce the same smooth acceleration/brake curve of the PS2.

why not? if we're at the point of byte perfect recomp of system firmware+games, surely we could find a patch that would fix that in both pcsx2 or this project

The author comments on the popularity of agents and then says this:

>chatbots and agents and other tasks may increasingly be handled on PCs and phones and smart glasses...

To me this article seems poorly researched. Agents aren't just a new version of LLMs. They're proactive and persistent. I love how my agents watch commits and rewrite my projects as new upstream features become available. I like how my agents will check pricing to look for deals and watch for new listings on Facebook marketplace. None of those things will ever be happening constantly on my phone. Phones, by design, aren't persistently active. Think the author ignores all that when they envision a future where agents increasingly run locally.

I don't expect Tao to be well versed in medicine, but yeah, that slide is detached from clinical practice.

Medicine has never required that the method of action for a treatment be fully understood. Our current regulatory framework only checks for safety and efficacy because we've never formally understood everything going on in the body. Seems like a difference between "hard" science and the clinical/engineered implementation.

>I miss when these were done legitimately.

Before LLM-assistance there were barely any fully playable recomps.

How many recompilation projects have you helped with? I get annoyed with non-contributors complaining about the people that contribute.

>OpenAI drops some hundreds of "solutions", incomprehensibly written "solutions", and we are all expected to jump on them and what? Appreciate their contributions? Why?

...

>So, no, I will not be sending Sam Altman a bottle of whisky anytime soon, nor I am planning on spending my time reading through that paper and trying to make sense of it.

Think about a hypothetical circumstance where we get radio communication with some aliens on another planet. They send over tons of math to help us advance our tech, we know the math they're sending us is correct, but their explanations are really hard to work through because they aren't humans and the math is so different from anything we've done. Should we whine about the results they sent to us and refuse to engage with it?

>The pair calculate the figure in different ways, with Anthropic including the revenue from sales via cloud partners such as AWS and Google Cloud, while OpenAI does not.

gift link didn't work for me, and is this poorly phrased? because it seems implausible that OpenAI doesn't typically include revenue from their models being used on AWS. Perhaps the "gross up" is referring to how the number is included? like Anthropic was using the value pre-removal of revenue sharing and putting the revenue share subtraction as a separate expense?

[not a finance guy so someone tell me I'm wrong if that's not a plausible reading]