Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems really paradoxical and I think it would just burn up compute. The AI really doesn't have any way to know it's getting better without humans telling. As soon as the AI begins to recursively improve based on its own definition of improvement model collapse seems unavoidable.
If humans are able to judge, and if the AI is more capable than a human in every respect, then why can't the AI be the judge of its own performance? Humans judge their own output all the time.
Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
791–800 of 868 posts
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#792Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The correction will be brutal, worse than the Industrial Revolution. Has it occurred to you that there might not be a correction, and that the outcome would still be brutal, at least on par with the industrial revolution.
It won't get that far. It's physically impossible to build out the datacenters required for the "AI is actually good and we have mass layoffs" scenario. This Anthropic investment is spurred on because they've already hit a brick wall with capacity. $40B goes a long way, but not for datacenters where nearly every single component and service is now backordered. Even if you could build the DC, the power connection won'…
Imagine a scenario where someone claimed that it was physically impossible to replace all the buggies with automobiles because everything was backordered and there were labor shortages. Surely the replacement still happens eventually though?
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#793My opinion about this is that Google see it as a way to weaken OpenAI, and few other side benefits, including the option to acquire Anthropic. And it may very well be bad news for OpenAI.
> including the option to acquire Anthropic. I have feeling that Dario is not the type of man who would want to be acquired and then have Google's CEO telling him what to do.
If milquetoast Sundar ever told anyone what to do, we would have heard about it by now.
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#794I think the subtext of the last few weeks is the Anthropic was becoming severely capacity constrained (or approaching that). They seem to have had to sign two somewhat adverse contracts with Amazon and Google in short succession. suddenly model quality is back up again.
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#795Google investing in its own customer, Anthropic buying Google's compute. the money doesn't really leave the room.
The money does leave the room — it gets converted into physical infrastructure that's increasingly rationed. Capital is not the constraint anymore.
Dominion Energy can't serve new data center load in Loudoun County until 2028. NERC flagged grid emergency risk across most of CONUS. Phoenix is in active water rationing while hosting 47 hyperscale facilities. Helium supply (45% Qatar, used in EUV cooling) took real hits in 2026.
Even if Google funds Anthropic, who funds the new transformers, the grid interconnect queue position, the water permit reviews? That part of the cycle isn't circular — it's hitting physics.
Capital is fungible. Substations aren't.Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#796Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine you're a typesetter and they just invented computerized printing.
These kinds of comments are so confusing to me, is the work you do day to day really so trivial that you can be wholesale replaced by an LLM?
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#797It 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…
I don't get why people are so gung-ho about these companies having a moat. As a user and a consumer, I don't want them to have a moat. Moat means pseudo-monopoly. That is the exact opposite of what we want. Only the investors and owners want a moat, to keep others out. So what they're doing? They're competing. Good.
That's why it's interesting to try to pick apart where the moat is.
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#798Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Where I work: - Development velocity is very noticeably much higher across the board. Quality is not obviously worse, but it's LLM assisted, not vibe coding (except for experiments and internal tools). - Things that would have been tactically built with TypeScript are now Rust apps. - Things that would have been small Python scripts are full web apps and dashboards. - Vibe coding (with Claude Desktop, nobody is using…
Some places are more diligent, but most are not. We HATE reading other people's code, and we only have so much focus capacity per day to review all the shit these clunkers spew out.
Over time, the errors induced by Looks Good To Me code reviews compound.
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#799Earlier quoted context omitted.
you can say the same about every recent US war, and add one 0 to the sum. Or, more controversially, say EU green deal which decimated EU car industry and lost/will lose us few millions of jobs. Losses up to a trillion and nothing to show for that
I know it may be a radical view, but less cars is always a good thing. Not too happy about the job losses, though.
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#800Earlier quoted context omitted.
This with the ability to research, iterate on prototypes, in my opinion allows to determine the right thing quicker as well. Of course right now the value is largely intuition based, there may be some immediate revenue/profit, but revenue/profit will take time to follow, so in a way it is a speculative intuition based bet. Financial gains will take time to follow, so for a period of time it will be "trust me bro" for…
I question the premise that faster iteration on prototypes leads to better revenue or business outcomes.
The difference is all that pre-work. The problem with that is some things are only obvious after you've built one and it doesn't fit just right for some reason. That reason is impossibly harder to just reason about and figure out vs iterating where possible. For software things that's easier. For hardware, we have stories like the palm pilot engineer having a wooden block with them for a week before deciding on the form factor for it. Such pre-work is valuable, but if the cost of prototypes is way down, you can afford to iterate instead of trying to psychically predict everything up front. Of course that doesn't work for eg trips to the Moon, but most busineeses aren't doing that.