krona

At a guess, 30% of the speeches given today in parliaments across the western world were already written/inspired by an LLM. This is somewhat inevitable.

It has zero network effects and barely any economies of scale. It's a good product without a moat which will get replaced by any company with their own compute and cheaper energy.

I think the only way out for Anthropic is to buy a few neoclouds as they go under, but even then it's a coin flip as to if they survive the next 3 years.

> LLMs are dumb and unpredictable

Dumb, yes. But if the LLM hacks a Korean bank so it can 'fix' your router misconfiguration, it's only unpredictable from your perspective, not the person who designed the training pipeline.

yeah i trained a 1000 param LLM in my browser literally yesterday. it's game over for Anthropic /s.

There are cross-cultural differences in moral reasoning, and I think this is very interesting. But that seems to make training a hyper-rational AI, with no meaningful theory of mind, to be 'moral' or 'just' even harder.

> What is today a moral imperative is not the same as what was moral 50/100 years ago and is not the same as what will be morally acceptable 50/100 years from now.

This is a fashionable 'blank-slatist' statement about moral reasoning which became popular a few decades ago.

> Logic would prefer moral derivations over feelings, stakes over etiquette, and a constant scheduled updating of morality based on the derivatives rather than holding onto the rot and pushing back against change as long as possible.

Humans haven't changed in any meaningful way in hundreds of thousands of years, and you're saying the moral landscape is constantly changing? How is this not contradictory?

or network effects, or intangible assets (e.g. a brand, patents) or even economies of scale which they own and can leverage.

Narrator: But this was a fiction. In reality, evidence of any profits being made was extremely hard to come by.

There are dozens of ongoing wrongful death, manslaughter and negligence claims going through the courts. I won't insult you by providing links.

> Nobody is talking about banning the sale of gas boilers.

Several energy suppliers websites have pages dedicated to this very topic.

The current 2035 target originates in the ministerial Heat and building strategy policy paper (2020):

"Our ambition is to phase out the installation of natural gas boilers beyond 2035."

In the Annex:

Aiming to phase out the installation of new and replacement natural gas boilers from 2035, once costs of low-carbon alternatives have fallen, in line with the natural replacement cycle, including any hydrogen-ready boilers in areas not converting to hydrogen, to ensure that all heating systems used in 2050 are compatible with Net Zero.

Given the energy policy of the UK, which to many engineers makes absolutely no sense at all, it's impossible to predict what will actually come out of the policy sausage factory next.

> “oh - use after free and out of bounds are trivial to solve” and ignore the enormously meaningful order of magnitude harder thread safety

This is what advocates of Rust are guilty of and CVE-2025-68260 is an example of it. Ultimately TSAN and KTSAN exist for a reason, and rust devs should learn how to use them effectively.

Compared to what? CVE-2025-68260?

> You can be annoyed by Rust fanboys, sure, but the more annoying are the Rust haters, because the hate always comes from a place of ignorance.

For what it's worth, Rust fanboys also seem just as vulnerable to their ignorance of C/C++ compiler extensions and tooling (e.g. sanitizers, bounds annotations, standard library hardening modes and so on.) which are just normal part of professional C/C++ use today.