dannyw

They are doing similar things, yes; but they are not the same especially when it comes to `cyber` classifiers, or the extent to which these models will assist you with ML and AI research.

I find that logic similar to thinking both political parties are the same.

The FAA is federal, and may pre-empt state/local laws (see: CFTC, Kalshi/Polymarket/etc).

It's also pretty well accepted that the FAA is very cozy to SpaceX, and partially because NASA is basically dependent and beholden on SpaceX at the moment.

I’d love model drops early, but I’d also love to see them drop something the day before Anthropic’s IPO.

We need a counterbalance.

Fortunately it is not a one horse race. GPT 6.1 Sol is an excellent model, sure it has some weaknesses (e.g. frontend design), but it also has strengths too (e.g. computer use / control; which is great for automated E2E QA).

On software engineering I find it's generally close enough to Opus 5.5 where it's more situational and even personal preference / skills / prompting style on which is better.

Most importantly, while neither company are saints, I don't curse at OpenAI models for classifiers anywhere as much as Claude models.

The "take over any instagram/meta account through their AI password reset chatbot" was going around and sold on shady forums for ~1 month before being patched.

That’s not backed by data at all. We’re discovering more existing vulnerabilities.

Anthropic needs to issue a cease and desist to Cursor for claiming official “by Anthropic” extensions they don’t make or control.

They would have done this in a heartbeat to anyone that they’re not reliant on for compute.

Honest question: does that even remotely matter, or is it an outdated prior? All software has bugs.

The goal and objective is to deliver value for your user/customers; to the speed, reliability, and assurance requirements your market segment expects.

Anthropic is desperately dependent on SpaceXSI's compute (which either party can cancel without cause, on short notice), they can't really tell SpaceXSI to do anything without ruining their IPO; or more Claude outages leading to users flocking to OpenAI, etc.

Of course not! But my question/point is why they allow a little bit to be scraped at all?

Obviously, the YouTube team is aware of yt-dlp, and with Google's engineering density, a small team can completely block it & win in the cat-n-mouse game against community volunteers that make all their code public.

You’re right, but the risk here could be reduced significantly by not loading dozens of third party marketing, analytics, and tracking scripts; one of which was supply chain compromised in this case.

Of course, that goes against commercial interests.

Another similar observation: if you ask Claude to download pirated content, of course it'd refuse.

But during the middle of a long training project, when it became clear I was data bound, Claude offered recommendations for BitTorrent clients for me to "acquire data".