Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 868 posts

Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic

#741

Post by eueew »

Bewelge wrote: post #151
er2d wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes anti-trust is very much theatre nowadays. As long it further's American interests globally - monopoly is fine. Other countries need to take notice and start picking winners nationally in order to compete with the large American big tech firms.

Eh, I think this is actually not a specifically American thing. More of a neo-liberal mindset. Competition may be good in the long term. But a monopoly now may mean more money in your pocket now. The tech giants definitely give the US some geo-political power in some cases but in general the US would be better off with more competition. ed: @er2d, can't reply to your comment for some reason, so doing it here: I don't…

You’re wrong actually I suggest you read a book on industrial organisation and why monopoly is a more efficient market structure in relation to incentives for R&D.

Why do people comment on stuff they barely have an understanding of? Comical. People like you create noise.

Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic

#743

Post by camdenreslink »

aurareturn wrote: post #539
sethops1 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay TMobile $100 a month but they aren't worth a trillion dollars.

Yes but Tmobile enterprise customers don't pay much more for plans. In fact, they may pay less because of volume. However, Anthropic can and will charge much more for enterprise customers.

Why will Anthropic be able to do that? That assumes there won't be competition and switching costs will be high. That doesn't seem to be the case to me.

Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic

#744

Post by eueew »

mrits wrote: post #696
lionkor wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But let's be real, the AI output today is largely complete and utter shit. Like, really, without careful promoting and oversight, it's not fun to read, it's not smart, it's not accurate, it's not thorough, and it's certainly not yet over the massive show stopping hurdle that is lying and hallucinating all the time.

It's usually drastically better than humans. Most humans can't code. If you are comparing it to specialists then you are already admitting they are on their way to replacing us.

It’s meant to either act as a complement and/or substitute for humans. So it should be measured against those who get paid. Otherwise what is the firm paying for..?

Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic

#745

Post by nocman »

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #713
liendolucas wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the day you don't have that drug what do you do? If anything you are training people to become dependent on one or more subscription services.

Like the drug of electricity and Internet, running water grocery stores?

I don't think the likelyhood of "electricity and Internet, running water grocery stores" being pulled out from underneath you (either by long term failure or prohibitive cost changes) is anywhere near as high as it is for subscription-based AI tools (at least not in the US).

Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic

#748

Post by tonyarkles »

zahlman wrote: post #639
tonyarkles wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 track of the specific lines of code where the behaviour difference shows up." > The explanation it came back with was pretty wild.…

The wild part, for me at the time, was how many steps there were from cause and effect and how perfectly they'd been reasoned through. The first time I had that experience was my first real "this LLM stuff might have some legs". My second similar experience several days later was "hmmm that wasn't a fluke..."

I'm still at a stage where I'm not completely sure that I like the code that Codex or Claude wants to write. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it takes 5 or 6 iterations to get it somewhere I'm happy with. But wow, on the front end of the work, they are great design/review/iterate partners; sometimes I let the tools write the first draft and then I find the gaps, sometimes I write the first draft and let the tools find the gaps. Either way has worked really well for making solid debt-free progress.

Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic

#749

Post by twobitshifter »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #674
twobitshifter wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI was created to counter the threat of Google controlling a possible AGI. What if we still end up in the same state in the end? Both Anthropic and OpenAI have abandoned any pretense of altruism at this point and find themselves overwhelmed bythe forces of capitalism.

Find themselves overwhelmed by? They are the forces of capitalism embodied. "All that is solid melts into air" This makes 19th century mechanization look like the paleolithic, but it's the same fundamental force.

At this point yes, ท but this was openai mission in 2016: "OpenAIs goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, _unconstrained by a need to generate financial return_. We think that artificial intelligence technology will help shape the 21st century, and we want to help the world build safe AI technology and ensure that AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. Were trying to build AI as part of a larger community, and we want to openly share our plans and capabilities along the way."

Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic

#750

Post by jayd16 »

Petersipoi wrote: post #483
jayd16 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like how cloud costs got cheaper and we solved the datacenter/energy problem over the past 10 years.

For the most part, we did, actually. We had plenty of energy and computer until AI came along. Energy will get fully solved eventually. To think otherwise is to bet against humanities ability to innovate, which I don't think is ever a wise bet.

ZIRP and Moore have helped the cloud build up with a promise of profits and ever increasing performance. The future is likely different.

"Power will be cheap" is hope you can hang any hat on. We've been increasing compute per watt but again that's on Moore. I don't think it makes sense to bank on a new energy surplus.

Post reply on HN