21–30 of 202 posts
Its worse for some other "ai" related companies. Coreweave for instance, now has its CDS trade around 600bp, which is a 1/3 rise in 2 months, which implies that the probability of a default in 5 years is 40% at a 40 cent recovery rate. That makes Coreweave's credit rating the equivalent of CCC-, which aint good.
I said this earlier but: It's interesting to see the market try to do anything to rally. The problem is you guys are rallying on the thought that you've scared the Fed into cutting rates, but actually by rallying you short circuit it. You ensure they won't cut. And that's how the market's lillypad hopping thinking is actually just stupidity. You rallied, so now there are no rate cuts so the crash will be even more br…
Oracle's credit default swaps surge as Barclays downgrades its debt rating
Its worse for some other "ai" related companies. Coreweave for instance, now has its CDS trade around 600bp, which is a 1/3 rise in 2 months, which implies that the probability of a default in 5 years is 40% at a 40 cent recovery rate. That makes Coreweave's credit rating the equivalent of CCC-, which aint good.
Yeah, and then the Canadian government handed hundreds of millions to the kids at Cohere who have now gone spent it on Coreweave. When it was all announced I was very very vocal that using an inexperienced startup for the sovereign compute capabilities seemed a very poor choice. I'm so curious to see how this all plays out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard for me to imagine paying real money for something that gives me a maybe-hallucinated answer that I need to check every single time. A flaky test is worse than a failing test.
_sigh_ Yes LLMs hallucinate, no it's no longer 2022 and ChatGPT (gpt-3.5) is the pinnacle of LLM tech. Modern LLMs in an agentic loop can self correct, you still need to be on guard but if used correctly (yes, yes, holding it wrong etc. etc.) can do many, many tasks that do not suffer from "need to check every single time".
Granted, most of that was debugging some rather complicated typescript types in a custom JSX namespace, which would probably be considered hard even for most humans as well as there being comparatively few resources on it to be found online, but the issue is that overall it wasted more of my time than it saved with its confidently wrong answers.
When I look at my history I don't see anything that would be worth twenty bucks - what I see makes me think that I should be the one getting paid.
Maybe we can avoid an Ellison buyout of Warner Brothers.
Its worse for some other "ai" related companies. Coreweave for instance, now has its CDS trade around 600bp, which is a 1/3 rise in 2 months, which implies that the probability of a default in 5 years is 40% at a 40 cent recovery rate. That makes Coreweave's credit rating the equivalent of CCC-, which aint good.
Yeah, and then the Canadian government handed hundreds of millions to the kids at Cohere who have now gone spent it on Coreweave. When it was all announced I was very very vocal that using an inexperienced startup for the sovereign compute capabilities seemed a very poor choice. I'm so curious to see how this all plays out.
Additionally, Cohere is no less “kids” than Anthropic or OpenAI. Aidan was literally one of the co-authors of “Attention is all you need”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard for me to imagine paying real money for something that gives me a maybe-hallucinated answer that I need to check every single time. A flaky test is worse than a failing test.
_sigh_ Yes LLMs hallucinate, no it's no longer 2022 and ChatGPT (gpt-3.5) is the pinnacle of LLM tech. Modern LLMs in an agentic loop can self correct, you still need to be on guard but if used correctly (yes, yes, holding it wrong etc. etc.) can do many, many tasks that do not suffer from "need to check every single time".
like which tasks?
How do you decide whether you need to check or not?
If you're asking it to complete 100 sequences, and if the error rate is 5%, which 5% of the sequences do you think it messed up or _thought_ otherwise? if the 5% is in the middle, would the next 50 sequences be okay?