797 karma · joined April 13, 2022
1) That level of demand is likely true, but that doesn't mean that the total spending demand is to match to that level.
2) Most of said office work can be automated via normal software, and need not use LLMs. If they were to be automated, the amount of work left available for Anthropic to routinely work on would be (lower than before the automation took place).
- They have internal models that still show there's gas in the tank, in terms of improvements
- Open models are eroding their customer base on the low end of the curve, & also you need not use Astra Max to classify images.
- The true demand for high-intelligence tasks is lower than what they need to justify their spending
- It would be wonderful for them to kick up a scare & give reasons as to why high-int open models should be regulated out of existence, opening up the lower end for them to take again
- Setting up an oligopoly for themselves gives them a captive audience, just like it did for (insurance, banking, telecoms, etc.) via regulatory capture
By the time we can show you data that convinces you that it does work, the next generation would already be out & incrementally dismantling the old conjectures that were true in the previous generations.
You're fundamentally asking for a violation of how information passively disseminates amongst humans: To go any faster requires more effort on the receiver's part to move up on the adoption curve.
The difference is artificial, and delusionally blinds itself to the base reality that social/political capital exists.
Again, just because there isn't a cash figure attached to that bounty, doesn't mean that a reward hasn't been attached to it in the form of social/political prestige.
Both actions are equivalent, as such words are (social and/or political) capital bounties offered to the masses in return for fulfilling the death of said politician.
Capital always exists, even in the form of words. To deny a variant of capital whilst allowing another variant is inconsistent/doublespeak.
Just because it's not printed onto a piece of denominated paper, doesn't mean that such capital doesn't exist.
> > If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at borders.
If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at money.
Either the right extends everywhere, including money, or it doesn't.
It's too conceptually big for some people to put into the 'fear bank' to be relied upon.
For the threat to be near-universally relied upon, it needs to:
(a) have a physical presence, and
(b) be within 2 orders of magnitude of size to trigger physical alertness (tick -> herd of elephants), but also
(c) not be (immediately dangerous/lethal that the only solution is to never meet it)
(a) The LSP's tools being competently built & consistent, and
(b) the LLM using it having been properly trained to use LSPs in general.
Using a native tool like grep has the same 2 assumptions, but
(a) is satisfied due to ossification of grep's core features (a good thing), and
(b) is extra-satisfied because the LLM can be trained to properly use grep specifically, and not "20th variation of grep wrapped behind an LSP, but just different enough to throw curveballs".
On top of that, grep is almost always present in default Linux environments, so its presence is assumed & can be relied upon when needed.
Strawman fallacy: It is in the interests of private enterprise to not have their $100-million+ airplanes crash, because it means $100-million+ going up in smoke. The owners of those planes would therefore have an interest in not having them crash.
> Or maybe "Let drug dealers (pharmaceutical companies) sell whatever the free market will bear without testing, safety, or the ability to hold them responsible."
Under this scenario, if the public finds out that a drug is harmful/lethal, the public jerks away from that drug towards solutions that have a reputation of working.
Is the resulting rate of fatality/worse-QOL lower than (a central authority filtering out drugs & holding them to standards)? No, definitely not. But the gap between the two is not infinite, and in most cases falls into an order of magnitude of difference.
-----
> I only ask, because there are some people who unironically think that we'd be more safe going back to the time before OSHA, or medical licensing, and some of them hang out here.
An axiom of (feeble-mindedness in the average person) is proposed here. People are as good/competent as the standards that they are held to.
> medical licensing
There's a difference between a certification of competency, and a deliberate constriction of the supply of medical residencies.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/5550556-residency-cap...
...if and only if the kid in question has the mental capacity to take on the whole truth without confusion.
Some kids have the potential to go hog wild on multivariable calculus, and they should be given the chance to handle it all. But they shan't be the benchmark that others with differing capabilities must hit to understand a concept.
Counterargument: As advancements in transistor densities slow down, the rationale for increasing depreciation cycles makes more sense. As the performance gap between new & 5-year-old hardware continues to shrink, then the need to replace older hardware similarly shrinks, justifying longer depreciation cycles.
If I recall, previous attempts to do so made them get stuck in edit loops.
Internal impetus cannot be cultivated if the youth do not want or desire to be taught cultivation.
Facility buildouts will continue at their own pace, independent of current market demands.
https://openrouter.ai/rankings#top-models
And their market share sits at around 16-20%.
At 75.3 trillion tokens for the week ending 10 Aug 2026, that means that up to 450 trillion tokens were plausibly demanded by the whole market for that week.
My take: At max saturation, each person on earth could have their demands satiated by an average of 16 agents running concurrently. Sometimes more, often times less, but the average would likely be at 16.
At 200 tokens/second for each agent, that would mean 15.48288 quintillion tokens per week.
We're currently at about 0.00290643601% of the calculated demand ceiling.
Even if the demand limit per person is just 1 agent at 50 tokens/second, the current demand's still 0.186011905% of the theoretical ceiling.
....
:T
Considering the 8B model uses 53 billion transistors, that's 6.625 transistors per parameter.
Assuming they can get it down to 3 (somehow), that's still 300 transistors, or 5.565 RX 9070s.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-9070.c4250
You're looking at
1) waiting for another 3-5 generations of transistor improvements before it can fit into a single conventional chip, or
2) another generation before getting a monster of a chip (1000+ mm^2), and prices for flawless etching scale quadraticly (likely $1000+ for manufacturing costs alone).
Could happen, but it's a long shot for a market that could be satiated by specialized accelerators.
This assumption is likely what has led to the erroneous failure.
Enterprise compute per rack has scaled multiple fold in the last 3-5 years. Alongside the training efficiency gains & datacenter scale increases, even 50T+ is well within reach at the top end.
...This part immediately made me link it to the hipster stereotype:
"oh, it's sooooo much better on vinyl because you can hear the cracks & pops"
Neither pieces in the chat log work for me: The prompt was a wall of ramblespeak. The output was a presentation that should've been an email.
> medicaid, medicare
You can't. You're dealing with the inevitably increasing costs of human labor as it becomes more valued over time.
To decrease the costs without devaluing human labor inherently requires the use of labor-magnification tools to perform cost amortization, or use machines to move the performance of labor up by one layer of abstraction (directly performing the work -> maintaining the machines that perform the work) and amortize the costs that way.
> social security, and welfare
Both schemes require a sufficiently large working population that is multiple times larger than the recipient population to remain sustainable & relatively painless (Ratio of > 3).
In scenarios where the aforementioned ratio is lowered, whether incrementally or suddenly, the total supply from the working population decreases whilst total demand remains the same. As told in conventional economics, this results in an increase in prices as the same amount of resources chases a decreasing amount of labor.
Not immediately being a copyright bootlicker.
The fact that you went straight to "BuT pIrAtEs" already shows who you actually care: Corpos, not people.
If and only if what they'll be given is not taken away by anyone under any reason.**
Loss aversion bias innately exists within us for a reason: How can anyone live if someone else seeks to take what they have away?
Until they lose an election using "think of the children", they'll always continue to use it. In terms of political weaponry, it's currently unstoppable.
Where are the charities who're supposedly aligned wuth such a mission? Where're the blue states?
Assume the opposite direction. If you don't bring the data, then you're not doing your part to convince others on your position. Assumption of "default data" is a significant contributor in the breakdown of communications.
> 2) does that answer satisfy you?
No, in fact it leaves open more questions than before. From the article provided (https://archive.is/fZ9CN):
>> The $48 million annual budget for the observation network was small compared with the value of the data it collected for understanding the oceans and the climate, Dr. McLean said.
- Why didn't aligned charities step in to plug the gap? Billions flow through charities each year, and yet none have stepped in? One or 2 stepping in and still not being able to plug the gap, I can accept. None at all?
- If the data is that important, then there should be multiple efforts in collecting it, not just one. Why did everything get lumped into a single basket?