542458

"they are way more expensive to the company than people buying metered tokens" is true, but that doesn't mean they're a massive loss as you imply. It could be that plans are effectively breakeven but tokens are highly profitable.

But this is further to the point that the economics are more Amazon than Pets.com. If the plans are losers, great, when they need to be profitable they kill the plans and focus on metered tokens.

There's a bunch of arguments you could make there, varying from "yes, to stay ahead of the competition" to "yes, but it'll get a lot cheaper" to "no, things will plateau eventually". All those are datapoints that IMO this isn't a great analogue to the dotcom boom.

Cool! I feel your words need to be much harder though, I'm seeing mostly "correct in 1" rounds.

But from an economics perspective OAI/Antropic are more similar to Amazon than to Pets.com. Pets.com always had a heavily negative COGS - they were in the business of selling $20 bills for $15. On the flip side, Anthropic appears to be positive on COGS, and OAI could get positive by cutting limits on free and $20 plans. OAI/Anthropic are negative on the books mostly because of massive R&D expenses. This compares well to Amazon circa 1999, which was positive on COGS but negative overall due to massive buildout R&D costs.

Note that I'm not saying OAI/Anthropic are destined for success - because the rate of change combined with competition with cheap Chinese models is pretty novel in the business case history. But I am saying that pessimistic dot-com-boom comparisons don't seem to be all that deep.

This seems backwards to me. Linux is in a lot of ways more appealing to gamers than ever (proton/wine/etc is amazing), with the only thing really holding back being anticheat solutions that block Linux. But for the normie market the problems are the same as they've ever been - libreoffice is a poor MS office substitute, despite one million AI clones the Adobe suite and similar software remains table stakes, even the normie-friendly distros have the occasional arcane terminal-based fixes to jump through, and (the biggest obstacle of all) it has no mindshare and isn't preinstalled on computers that normies buy.

Keysmashing my keyboard resulted in 86% confidence that the text was AI written. I don't think this is a particularly good classifier, I've never seen an LLM output "kad jfkhasljkdhf laksjhdf".

Edit: If that's not realistic enough for you, the text "Hello world! My name is GravitasIsOverrated and I like coding and cooking. This text is 100% genuine, and not AI generated at all." results in 85% confidence that it's AI generated.

More broadly, I don't know why this would work. Qwen/Jev/whatever doesn't magically have the ability to discern AI-authored text from non-AI-authored text, and will increasingly get worse at it as the hallmarks of AI-written text change.

Ontario lotteries pay out about 58 cents per dollar in, so that's still $13,000 annually out-of-pocket for a total spend of $31,000. That's crazy money.

Really? That's an incredible number to me. 10% of all household spending goes to gambling?! 31,000 dollars per player *per year*? The mind boggles.

What I want (which I don’t think exists?) is a way to trigger turns that the user can monitor in the codex application. I.e., when event X happens, my application triggers Codex to take a turn with input Y, which the user can monitor through codex. Right now the only way to get close to this is with polling or essentially rewriting a codex-like frontend.

I was under the impression that they went after HF to try to get the answers to the benchmark questions. Is there something that contradicts that?

Kimi K3 was an interesting model only a month ago, and now we're looking at the same performance for 1/20th of the price. Wild how fast this is advancing.

I am also skeptical this is true. I made few typical exam essay questions and inserted the requisite clause about adding nonsense about Madagascar, and then had chatGPT answer the questions. In almost every case the output included a little executive summary at the bottom below the essay content, clearly calling out the nonsense it had added. I could believe a few students missing this, but over 90% of the class?