671–680 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The labor theory of value hasn't been considered correct in nearly a century.
If you want the neoclassical version: What happens when there is an oligopoly in the supply of labor? Same answer. Nothing good for the consumers of labor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was really confused by this comment, but I don't think it's just because of the Marxist analysis of the situation ('surplus value' of labor etc). What's really confusing is the claim that there's already a huge labor surplus (so capital controls wages); wouldn't LLMs making labor less important be reinforcing the trend, not upending it? Not saying I agree one way or the other, just want to get the argument straight…
The reason why labor is weak relative to capital is that there is a huge number of somewhat fungible suppliers, viz. humans, and that they all need to work constantly to keep themselves alive. If we assume that ai makes humans obsolete then you end up in a situation where your workforce is effectively perfectly unionised against you and the only thing you can do is choose which union you hire. If you think you can br…
I like that its more consistent than the 4o and o4 days but still 5.4, 5.3, 5.2, etc still are a mess, for example 5.2 and 5.1 don't have mini models and 5.3 was codex only. Anthropic is slightly better but where is 4.6 or 4.7 haiku or 4.7 sonnet etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. What's the worst potential outcome, assuming that all models get better, more efficient and more abundant (which seems to be the current trend)? The goal of engin…
At some point, because these models are trained on existing data, you cease significant technological advancement--at least in tech (as it relates to programming languages, paradigms, etc). You also deskill an entire group of people to the extent that when an LLM fails to accomplish a task, it becomes nearly impossible to actually accomplish it manually. It's learned-helplessness on a large scale.
Everyone talked about the marketing stunt that was Anthropic's gated Mythos model with an 83% result on CyberGym. OpenAI just dropped GPT 5.5, which scores 82% and is open for anybody to use. I recommend anybody in offensive/defensive cybersecurity to experiment with this. This is the real data point we needed - without the hype! Never thought I'd say this but OpenAI is the 'open' option again.
I ignore any hype news. Anthropic is the embodiment of bullshitting to me. I read Cialdini many decades ago and I am bored by Anthropic. OpenAI is very clever. With the advent of Claude OpenAI disappeared from the headlines. Who or what was this Sam again all were talking about a year ago? OpenAI has a massive user advantage so that they can simply follow Anthropic’s release cycle to ridicule them. I think it is real…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do "our [superlative] and [superlative] [product] yet" and you have pretty much every product launch
I love when Apple says they’re releasing their best iPhone yet so I know the new model is better than the old ones.
> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…
LLMs upend a few centuries of labor theory. The current market is predicated on the assumption that labor is atomic and has little bargaining power (minus unions). While capital has huge bargaining power and can effectively put whatever price it wants on labor (in markets where labor is plentiful, which is most of them). What happens to a company used to extracting surplus value from labor when the labor is provided…
finance today mostly valued on labor value following ideas of marx, hjalmar schact, keynes
in future money will be valued as energy derivative. expressed as tokens consumption, KWh, compute, whatever
you are right, company extracting surplus value from labor by leveraging compute is a bad model. we saw thi swith car and clothing factories .. turn out if you can get cheaper labor to leverage the compute (factory) you can start race to bottom and end up in the place with the most scaled and cheap labor. japan then korea then china
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs upend a few centuries of labor theory. The current market is predicated on the assumption that labor is atomic and has little bargaining power (minus unions). While capital has huge bargaining power and can effectively put whatever price it wants on labor (in markets where labor is plentiful, which is most of them). What happens to a company used to extracting surplus value from labor when the labor is provided…
I am still trying to figure out the business model of open weights. Like... it's wonderful that there are open LLMs, super happy about it, good for everyone, but why are there these? What is the advantage to their companies to release them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is our one chance to reach the fabled post-scarcity society. If we fail at this now, we'll end up in a totalitarian cyberpunk dystopia instead.
But cyberpunk is the best kind of dystopia!