hakimg

I would say aggregate human desires determines what jobs need to be done businesses come about to fulfill the gap.

As much as they are a bunch of self serving arseholes they are not hostile enemies.

I'm far more concerned about every scammer having unfiltered frontier model access than the movements of our billionaire class.

This is exactly my view and it's frustrating that a sizeable group of people refuse to accept there's any risk with AI.

We're literally trying to build something that's smarter than all humans and with the capacity to do extraordinary work while most people think there's no risk in open sourcing this capability with no guardrails (model ablation means no guardrails and as far as I'm aware can't be stopped).

Has our distrust in western companies really gotten to the point they'd rather unfiltered Astra level capabilities in the hands of every hostile government and terrorist organisation than potentially do any form of regulation in case it plays into the AI labs hands.

Why does everything have to be so black and white? It always either there's no threat at all or we all need to panic. How about be open to a reasonable discussion on potential outcomes and ways we can minimise risk?

There's some irony here because despite how many times climate change has been mentioned in this thread the current reaction mirrors climate change discourse with the majority of the thread denying the possibility of real AI risks and not even considering it as an intellectual question.

Hours spent at work have also gone down over the decades and leisure time has gone up. Even if that stat wasn't true and we all spent the same amount of time working more productively then that would still be good for society at large.

This attitude of unwillingness to do anything except for direct personal gain isn't good for the world and isn't good for yourself.

That's how the theory goes but I would argue the observable evidence says otherwise. TSMC is Taiwan's national champion and effectively a global monopoly, Samsung is the same for Korea and is highly effective on the world stage, same again with ASML.

When a country does what it can to support its key industries those companies often out compete their global rivals and this is exactly the strategy China is using against the west with their support of domestic electric car manufacturing, solar panels, battery tech.

Alternatively the west is often anti big business and we've repeatedly seen national championions go under.

These are carbon neutral as they remove atmospheric CO2 when the plant matter is grown

OpenAI also have 5.6 fast mode for a 2.5x speedup for 2x cost and is available on standard plans.

The original iPhone cost $500 and adjusting for inflation that is about $800 today. I don't remember phones costing $300 since before the smart phone era. Even Walkman phones cost $500 in the early 2000's.

Sorry but your whole argument that Anthropic must be burning cash is extremely weak and falls into the same tropes as Zitron.

We can actually get a very good approximation of the gross margin Anthropic sells their models over API by estimating model sizes which is pretty easy with comparible open source models and analysis points to 80-90% margins.

It also make sense for Anthropic to be profitable whilst raising large amounts of capital. This is because we're in a regime where just deploying GPU compute provides a huge upside and also demand for that compute has been relentless. Given that Anthropics best move would be to expand as fast as possible which requires raising capital as otherwise their organic growth would be far to slow.

There's about 20 million software engineers in the west and almost 50 million globally. Now add to the equation non technical paying subscribers who migrated from ChatGPT and enterprise API spend from internal AI applications and the figure seems pretty reasonable.