joshuamorton

This imagines HTML as code and not markup.

The reason HTML and markdown are more widely adopted than latex is because the former are more forgiving.

> When I was at Microsoft, partner-level engineers were making $1 million per year; now it's probably $2 million.

This seems...high. The levels.fyi data for 68/69 shows them maybe crossing 1M, and the highest available data point at a bit under 1.5 mil. Staff engineers at FAANG are not making 1M a year except in cases of significant stock growth. 700-800K is more reasonable. The AI labs pay a significant premium, yes (2-3x!).

My math on it was basically "I can work for 10-15 more years and retire meeting my financial goals, or work until my 4 year grant at an AI lab finishes and meet all the same goals, with more interesting work".

I'm not sure that's quite feasible. 2-2.5M in 10 years is about the best I've seen excluding getting reasonably lucky with major stock jumps. You could juice that a bit further with really aggressive savings, but for most people, you're looking at 4-5M in income pre tax over that 10-12 year period (maybe a bit higher), weighted mostly toward the end, so without a ton of time for market gains to help.

Right, and for the same purposes, the government has not made any claim that Claude poses risks. (And to the extent that they exist, pre-existing concepts like code review and testing mitigate them)

Again I'll reiterate: the only concern the government has stated is that of Claude refusing to answer things during an active battle.

I respect that decision, I think if the government wants to use OpenAI for that situation it makes sense. They can and should pick suppliers who meet their needs.

Nothing about what the government has said suggests any reason that Claude Code is a risk. So why are you insisting that it is and that the government is justified in banning it?

So Claude is a supply chain risk in the same way that an employee is a supply chain risk.

I'm struggling here because you're basing this determination entirely on things which the government never acused anthropic of, and haven't asked anthropic to address, and which the underlying law probably doesn't support.

The government made clear that it was only designating anthropic a supply chain risk due to their refusal to allow Claude to be used lawfully for autonomous kill chains and domestic surveillance. Why are you bringing up this other stuff when the government never did?

Actually, what I said was "Once the code is written, anthropic has not plausible form of control."

To which you brought up something that still wasn't relevant.

The government is perfectly able to choose not to work with contractors it doesn't like. That's not this.

Can't open AI do the same thing?

Claude code is neither of those things. So now can you explain how using Claude code could be a supply chain risk?

Okay, so what relevancy does this thing, which anthropic didn't do, have to anything we are talking which right now is using Claude code in line with its terms of service?

No, they said fable would stop working. That's very different. (Unless you're talking about anti-distillation stuff which is again, not relevant)

And my point is that using Claude models for coding a Boeing plane does not allow anthropic to interfere in the operation of those planes. Once the code is written, anthropic has not plausible form of control.

Thus, it cannot be a supply chain risk.

Yes, and this is not (and cannot be!) a supply chain risk in any reasonable interpretation.

Correct, anthropic's requirement was human-in-the-loop.

The DoD's response was to ban anthropic from all DoD facing activity and supply chains, whether or not there is a human in the loop. This does in fact run into exactly GP's issue. (or as I suggest elsewhere, can Boeing use Claude Code for software development?)

Isn't that textbook tortious interference with a business relationship?