Sol-

Seems way too early to tell whether it will be good or bad on balance. These breaches are annoying, but not catastrophic, and in the meantime you can secure software.

Is there any indication that such a bailout was even planned or is this just populist tilting at windmills?

But then in turn I'm surprised that states haven't yet sanctioned the mixers themselves. I understand there's no proof that they might not also mix legitimate funds, but I wouldn't have expected this to be a big hindrance given that everyone seems to know that most of their use is for money laundering.

How do they launder the coins generally? Given you traceable (most) cryptocurrency is by design, it seems you could sanction anyone who transacts with them? I understand it's likely not that simple, though.

As someone who's not a social butterfly, this sounds very good to me. I can engage in hobbies without wanting to shop around for attention at conferences or hobbyist groups. People like the author seem to think that socialization with humans is an end in itself for some reason. But if the AI can be reasonably intellectually stimulating, what's the issue?

I share the concern about TikTok-ification and intellectual stagnation, but this is unrelated to the main concerns of the article.

Neuralink integration and I'm out of here.

I did and Claude was very transparent about any potential conflict of interest. Very well-behaved model.

While the press release is nauseating, I can see how AI could be involved with matchmaking. My conversations with Claude likely capture my persona and interests and many tacit facets pretty well, like an OkCupid questionnaire on steroids.

I doubt this investment firm will have genuine connection in mind though.

I feel like your response to AI depends in part also how much you find the status quo stimulating and interesting. If you are a social butterfly like the OP and already embedded and happy with communities, then of course AI will be a big loss in contrast. I do much agree with his assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, though.

That's an interesting future where everyone's personal agent basically renders their own interpretation of information that's out there. And seems like the logical end state.

Probably a first world problem, but with Opus 5.5's efficiency, the limits on the 5x plan are simply sufficient for my everyday work, even when running 2-3 sessions at a time. So I wonder when I would use Sonnet 5.5.

More concurrency than that isn't really practical for me if I want to retain some semblance of understanding. Perhaps it's different for purely web app or frontend tasks, where the outcome is more relevant than the process, I don't have much experience there (and also don't want to belittle these domains, I might be underestimating their complexity).

So surprisingly, my own work is at least for the time being almost saturated by the model capabilities. I am not sure how I'd scale from here. Sure I could run all requests at max effort to burn tokens for the sake of it, but that can't be it. And for many tasks, I am not really able to define so clear cut success criteria or self-verification loops that I could benefit from letting an agent (or a fleet thereof) autonomously run for a day.

So I realize it's a skill issue on my side, but I can't be the only one. I wonder if there is a limit to token demand, at least short term. Feels like either they accelerate to AGI and RSI, where the AI can find uses for token, or things might plateau at some point.

Note I don't think this because I'm an AGI skeptic or think there's a ceiling to intelligence, but there might simply be a valley of economic hardship for the companies where the supply of tokens outpaces the demand, due to a lack of ideas of what to do with them. And this might slow down the funding enough that they never reach escape velocity with the training run scaling. But we'll see.

I think the "everything company" vision has become apparent for a while now. Doesn't even have to be sinister - I think Anthropic simply believes on one else can be trusted with this power. Another point of leverage they have is that they can keep their internal models for themselves.

Voting for it is easy and I hope it catalyzes innovation. But still, completing a damn reactor without insane budget overruns is the problem.

Also the general public might find the implications of AGI so distasteful even if everything goes well that we might stall out or get the Butlerian Jihad before we can cure cancer. Artists and Software Engineers, now also Mathematicians, already have existential crises, but the public still thinks AI is fake. I can't imagine the backlash when the realize what's coming even in the good ending.

"Investigating the novel enzyme incident in our SF lab [2027]"