SilverBirch

So I have three thoughts about this: The first thought is this is likely mostly survivorship bias. Yes, the claims that get to the humans are the ones that went wrong, and the mode of failure for LLMs is less that they get within 99% all of the time, it's more like 1% of the time they do something insanely dumb. At which point your customers are pissed off. That's kind of obvious, and it sucks for the humans who have to clear up the situation. But it's still a win for the vast majority of cases.

Secondly, does anyone actually know how much of your insurance premium is going on the call centre staff? most people don't claim, those that do mostly have simple claims. The actual cost for insurance companies is actually paying out claims, so even if you automated all of this it likely doesn't change your economics. Historically "New" Insurance companies only really succeed by mis-pricing risk and gaining market share that way - they often then fail when that risk materializes. Lemonade sounds a lot like that.

Finally, they haven't engaged with the tidal wave that's coming. Sure, AI agents handling claims is happening now. Just you wait. In a couple of years time it'll be AI agents making the claims for you and suddenly there'll be bots filing claims with infinite patience and a direct mandate to try and get as big a payout as possible. That is when it's going to get really hairy.

This is kind of a "I'm not here to tell you about Jesus he either lives in your heart or he doesn't".

I am an engineer, I have about 15 years of experience. I have been using AI in my job since mid 2025. Over that time it has gone from being an interesting toy that could kind of help but would often hinder, to being an absolutely explosively powerful tool. Just from personal experience it is the thing that has improved the most of any of my tools in career. And over that time my spend on AI has sky rocketed.

You don't have to believe me, it's obviously just anecdotal, but for anyone in the same position as me (And there really are lots of us), to claim model capability peaked in 2024 is just staggeringly dumb. It'd be like claiming electric cars peaked in 2008. I don't know how further to convey this to you.

It may very well be the case that the financial side is a bubble that horribly bursts. But the technology is real and the claims Ed has made are just wrong.

Just so I'm clear, Grok bot snags your credentials and then pretends to be you whilst surfing the web. If it uses your account to post of X (ie, the social network), is it adhering to X terms of service or is that violating policy by using a bot?

It’s been pretty clear for a while that Nikita has been looking at the ways twitter is bad- foreign accounts stoking hatred in the west for cash.

He started putting in ways to change it and put in better incentives (not monetizing this rage baiters, disclosing country of origin). The problem is, the people he screws by doing that are the exact accounts Elon Musk loves, do every time he wanted to make a change cat turd would go screaming to daddy. Hence why I find it so unsurprising he’s quitting.

I work in the corporate world, I have detailed confidential discussions about technical details of upcoming products and contract details. The first thing we do in those situations is we all sign NDAs. The idea that you'd do a presentation to a hundred people and expect that information to stay confidential without specifically informing them is just absurd. Which is part of the reason Jobs just screwed him around rather than doing what you're meant to do - get the person to sign an NDA and then sue them if they break it.

What do you mean for the sake of Apple? This didn't benefit Apple. He screwed with this guy for months because of a mistaken idea that the guy should have somehow known Apple's attitude towards secrecy without being told, and after months of messing him about sent him back the signed contract the second he had given up. There was no benefit to Apple here. In fact he harmed Apple by limiting their music collection in the initial stages. It's also not on the limits of ethics. It's unethical.

Always worth remembering that as well as being an innovator, Steve Jobs was often a cruel and petty man.

It's computer Gain of Function research.

The "move to the us" thing seems to just be absolute twitter brain. The biggest problem London founders face is raising funding and these guys seemingly raised plenty based on an idea that that didn't seem to understand the market they were targeting.

I think this is such a great example of misunderstanding a political problem as a technical problem, and misunderstanding twitter as real life.

> the political winds seemed favourable

Sorry. How? Some libertarians on twitter were in favour. But if you have spent any time paying attention to British politics at all you would note the incredible sway the elderly have over politics. Even the people who are pro-building aren't stupid enough to think you're going to achieve that by building on green belt land, so this idea of an uplift of 140x is just farcical. Half of British debate on house building is disingenuously accusing your opposition of concreting over the green belt, whilst disingenuously promising you can build millions of new homes without concreting over the greenbelt.

The problem with building in the UK is mainly planning permission. In the UK is you need approval from the local council and the local council is elected by Nimby pensioners. So you can't get approval. That's it. That's the problem. That's a political problem that you can solve by getting central government to remove local governments ability to block projects. Or by running targeted political campaigns in local areas to get specific things approved. Not by automating the form your fill in to get your planning application rejected.

Isn't this the opposite of what I want? I don't want people willing to pay getting into my inbox. Those are the people who think they can get more from me somehow. Those are exactly the people I want to not be in my inbox.

>If Rivian’s native UI is so great, then their customers… won’t use CarPlay. It’s that simple.

I kind of disagree with this. Airpods are purely additive, customers can just choose to use different headphones with their iPhone if they want. But they don't want, because Apple lets Airpods interact with the iPhone in a way that other manufacturers can't.

So no, carplay wouldn't be mandatory but it's likely that Apple's leverage will kill their in house offering.

To be honest I don't think what the models themselves say in relation to these specific questions matter. Because I don't think it reflects are durable underlying worldview. I suspect that the way you frame things is going to influence them so muc that it's irrelevant what they would say when put in a petri dish.

What is a lot more important is how they're develop. To take the two sides of the spectrum - they say has a slightly expansive attitude towards civil liberties, but if you try to use it's tool it will phone it's owners and ask permission for you to use it. Or you can pick up Grok one day and find out that Elon Musk had a bad weekend and Grok is back to being mecha hitler.