501–510 of 868 posts
I find it crazy that Google considers Anthropic to be worth almost 10% of Google itself (350B valuation mentioned in the article). Anthropic gets traction but has no moat, no infrastructure and relatively small team working for it. I feel for 40B you can get a lot of very smart people and a lot of very good hardware to outcompete it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There has always been a gap between the experience of solo/small shop developers, vs. developers who work in teams in a large corporate environment. But thanks to open source, we have for the past twenty years at least mostly all been using the same tools. But right now, the difference in developer experience between a dev on a team at a business which has corporate copilot or Claude licenses and bosses encouraging t…
Let’s take an extreme example. Meta seemingly has a constant stream of product managers. If llm’s really augment the productivity of engineers, why isn’t meta launching lots more stuff? I mean there’s no harm in at least launching one new thing. What are all those people doing with the so called productivity enhancements? What I’m calling into question is how much does generating more code matter if the bottle neck i…
Only solution I can think of is to drastically cut headcount so productivity is back to prior levels, and profitability is raised. Big Tech is mostly market constrained with not much room to grow beyond the market itself growing.
As for startups, seems like AI tools have drastically reduced their time to market and accelerated their growth curves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, I think "vendor financing" is still a very risky premise. Vendors may be positioned to know how a customer is doing, but they're also incentivized to overestimate how well a customer is going to perform. GE Capital (edit: and GMCA) is a great example of how seemingly reasonable vendor financing can cause the lender serious problems.
GE Capital was a different creature, riding the line of fraud in some ways. They misapplied accounting rules and had to write down or capitalize over $20B for long term care insurance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In another context I might see it as vendor financing. However given that Google and Anthropic are competitors in this segment and given that Google has previously invested in them I'd rather see this as a sort of bartered stock purchase presumably for the purpose of hedging against failure. If Anthropic wins the race and it turns out to be winner takes all and you happen to own half of Anthropic then you still win h…
Sure, since Google is both a supplier and a competitor, it’s both vendor finance and hedging. Also, it increases their investment in AI, in general. Arguably, too much of this kind of hedging is anti-competitive. But that doesn’t seem to be much of a problem yet?
By the time it is a problem, it will be too late.
It feels like the market is full Wiley Coyote on frontier model makers, and I like Anthropic's B2B business model. But all progress points to a commodification of foundation models--Google first named it as "we have no moat, neither does anyone else." So there must be some secondary play driving this, right? Hardware sales? Hedging for search ad revenue? Still feels mispriced. I think asset inflation leaves too much…
The integration of LLMs with tools and data via agent harnesses has created the opportunity for a real moat. As these products start differentiating, the moats will develop to be significant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's certainly how it looks right now but where's the guarantee? What happens if it turns out that deep learning on its own can't achieve AGI but someone figures out a proprietary algorithm that can? That sort of thing. Metaphorically we're a bunch of tribesmen speculating about the future potential outcomes of the space race (ie the impacts, limits, and timeline of ASI).
Imagine such an AI exists. What good is AI that is so good that you cannot sell API access because it would help others to build equivalently powerful AI and compete with you? If you gatekeep, you will not make back the money you invested. If you don't gatekeep, your competitors will use your model to build competing models. I guess you can sell it to the Department of War.
Being unfathomably smarter than the people making use of it you could simply instruct it not to reveal information that would enable a potential competitor to construct an equivalent. No need to worry about competition; you can quite literally take over the world at that point.
Not that I think it's likely such a system will so easily come to pass, nor that I think humanity could manage to maintain control over such a system for long. But we're talking about investments to hedge against existential tail risks here so "within the realm of plausibility" is sufficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such as?
I'll throw this out as something where it has saved literally weeks of work: debugging pathological behaviour in third-party code. Prompt example: "Today, when I did U, V, and W. I ended up with X happening. I fixed it by doing Y. The second time I tried, Z happened instead (which was the expected behaviour). Can you work out a plausible explanation for why X happened the first time and why Y fixed it? Please keep tr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess if you build the first AI that can autonomously self improve, then nobody can catch up anymore.
If that happens catching up will be meaningless, everything we know and care about will change. You don’t have to be doomsday about it even, a self improving AI will quickly be more efficient than a human brain, all the data centers will be useless, tech companies will collapse (so will most others), everyone will have an incredible AI resource for the price of a hotdog. There’s no way it wouldn’t leak from whoever m…
It seems pretty wild to bet the future on such an assumption. What are you even basing it on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deepmind is heavily using Claude. This could help secure computing power.
I'm not up to date, I think. How so?
This same sentiment is there within Deepmind, except they have more power it seems. Perhaps Google is hedging their bet?
Best non-X link I could find: https://benzatine.com/news-room/internal-strife-at-google-th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s what’s needed when you go from $9B in ARR … to $30B in ARR literally just one quarter later . That kind of insane growth & demand is unprecedented at that scale. https://www.anthropic.com/news/google-broadcom-partnership-c...
What is all this AI doing? People are spending 10’s to 100’s of billions and no service or technology seems better or cheaper. Everything is more expensive and worse.
Coding velocity doesn't matter if it the net result is software that sucks massive schlong. The real world doesn't care if programmers can write code faster.