I think it’s along the lines of “premature optimization is the root of all evil”. These little micro optimizations take your attention and energy away from places that might be less visible and less enjoyable but more consequential.
Whoever responds "we need to stay within our CO2 budgets, otherwise we'll be in real trouble in 20 years" with "being a hippie and organizing your life around recycling" is really building up some sort of weird straw man and not really usefully engaging in solving the problem.
Kinda wish they'd just given the money to the foundation and let them still take care of it. Now they're out two million and still have to fork out more cash to take care of it.
I think it was sold precisely because the foundation didn't want to care for it going forward:
> “There were a lot of people that were hiking on the property, and while we welcome that, we wanted to ensure that the proper stewardship was overseeing it.”
IIRC, it was a fairly hard trail -- the hike in has ~500ft elevation gain in only ~1 mile. That does need a lot of seasonal upkeep.
If the rest of you weren’t so stupid, our industry wouldn’t have a problem
This attitude is why we’re all still stuck writing C++ in 2026. Nobody wants to admit that they’re not hardcore enough to write in poorly designed languages so we never make the effort to improve the situation. We all seem to agree that Zig is an upgrade over C. There’s nothing inherently modern about Zig that we couldn’t have written back in 1995 - we just didn’t because nobody wanted to admit that C is frustrating and clunky, albeit fast.
Yeah, people like to talk about how cultish Rust programmers are, but C programmers are so much worse. Just a couple days ago I had one trying to explain to me that all other languages are worse because you don't understand what the machine is doing under the hood. Completely ignoring it doesn't matter because I have a computer from 2023, not 1986.
> Just a couple days ago I had one trying to explain to me that all other languages are worse because you don't understand what the machine is doing under the hood.
Point out to these people that compilers rewrite your code quite significantly so the choice of language matters a lot less than the choice of debugger, profiler, etc.
Nate Silver’s early 538 work absolutely was this. He was spitting out minitab output from the command line straight into articles to answer fun questions like, “Is Tom Brady the most efficient passer of all time?”. It’s a capital offense that the NYT scrubbed the web of everything from 538.
The steel man is that American requests must be lawful, are done transparently through the courts, are appealable, and don’t come through secret agencies.
The titanium gold alloy man is that the Chinese laws are inarguably stricter and more authoritarian than the US laws, regardless of the actual implementation of either.
Isn't this a misuse of the word steelman, because it wasn't accompanied by the criticism?
From Google Search overview box:
> To steelman means to build the strongest, most charitable version of an opposing argument—even better than the way your opponent stated it—before you criticize or reply to it. It is the exact opposite of a strawman, which is when you intentionally weaken or misrepresent someone's view to make it easy to knock down.
Police force is hiding their face.
Exquisite contracts are being made through informal announcements.
Strong suspicion on inside trading from high ranks.
A new level of people policing.
Waivers for criminals already convicted to support coup on other foreign states.
Lies or at least speeches that are plain denial of obvious facts or brush citizen problems as they were mere senseless complaints
Speech about god punishment and the end of the days almost weekly
Threats to use weapons graded of world level destruction for a conflict that "would have take a week"
Billionaire and trillionaires plainly saying what they want the government to do
In China, apparently there is at least one person who takes responsibility for everything no matter what and has been playing the discourse of growing together instead of attacking every single ally with unproven information while (seemingly) profiting from all crisis.
I don't know man. There is very little to defend. And look. I ain't American, and I still thought that guy had some good qualities despite the rest.
The nixonlike policy through the world in a state where only those people will have anything.
Pledges for cheques, stocks, accounts. Not even that seems to be materializing up to now
I do like my American folks, wish all of them the best, but don't fall for "the world against you talk"
This one is on you.
If Anthropic or OpenAI fails, the other wins the US market, no? I’m oversimplifying but…that’s a pretty realistic possibility in the face of people thinking sinking one US AI company would hurt the greater US venture into AI.
> If Anthropic or OpenAI fails, the other wins the US market, no?
I am of the opinion that they both either succeed or they both fail. They are both losing money hand over fist and their model quality is pretty close to each other. There is not a whole lot that sets them apart.
I agree on the analysis, but not on the conclusion. What makes you think that the conditions you describe are stable grounds for a duopoly where both could be successful at the same time?
If they did then Google would take over, and others would form from their competent engineers. Also, they don’t need to be profitable to succeed, they merely need to hype investors enough to ensure that their losses matter less than their growth projections.
I wonder if Google won’t end up the last man standing in the end in the west, after Anthropic that they have a major investment and partnership with, and OpenAI crumble under their large financial burdens; while Google has a far deeper actual cash pockets, more diversified, broader and deeper bench in all related matters on top of the massive name recognition and… even if a bit brittle… a “community” of users through Gmail, Google.com, Google workspaces, etc. not to mention the TPU space and their quantum breakthrough.
Oh come on, this post sounds like one of those twitter bots. No one seriously expected them to just give away billions in R&D for free, and they arent. The chinese model companies are actively moving away from the open source setup. Even state export controls.
> First, we should adhere to the principle of openness and win-win and boost innovation-driven development. As a new engine of world economic growth and an accelerator for the shift of growth drivers, AI is moving from the digital world into the physical world. We should seize this rare, historic opportunity to encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing. We should facilitate technological innovation, industrial development and scenario-based application of AI. We should make coordinated advances in the transformation and upgrade of traditional industries, the cultivation and growth of emerging industries and forward-looking planning for future industries, so that all sectors and businesses can benefit from AI
-- Keynote speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping at opening ceremony of 2026 World AI Conference
As a socialist myself, the above comment looks like a prime example of what Mark Fisher would call capitalist realism, the ideological belief that there is no alternative. The fact that somebody would think past quarterly earnings appears unthinkable to the committed ideologue.
They wouldn't give away R&D for free, they would give it away to destroy the capitalist mode of production, as outlined above. If that isn't a worthy goal from China's perspective, then I don't know what would be.
China isn't the US. They don't share the same ideology, strategy or conclusions.
As for the export controls, they explicitly exempt already-open models and set up an automated streamlined process for future ones.
> China isn't the US. They don't share the same ideology, strategy or conclusions.
Money and power know no ideology. They do pretty much the exact same things as the US as well (from a 3rd country's POV). They expand territory, they capture industries, etc, etc, etc,.
> Keynote speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping
Do you take the same literal interpretations of other politicians' speeches? Surely you know thats politicking, the same way every G2/G7 leader says they want a collaborative world blah blah but it's naive to not know that it is cutthroat competition in reality.
> they would give it away to destroy the capitalist mode of production
Well, I won't take that dream away from you, but you're gonna be disappointed in this particular case, in our lifetime, with this particular country, atleast :)
At least that link doesn't seem to have any such info? It does however have this sentence:
> It said most AI technologies would remain freely exportable, with simplified licensing for open-source technology exports
> Money and power know no ideology
As somebody who's an engineer himself and has talked to many a fellow engineer, I have noticed that engineering culture suffers from a deep conceptual impoverishment when it comes to philosophy and humanities. Most techies really have a hard time understanding ideology and it deeply distorts their world view with assumptions that everyone is like them. This has gotten them in hot water with the EU many a time, this will cause them to underestimate the systemic challenge China is mounting.
Ironically, this sort of pseudo-realism is the most ideological statement one could make. Let me cart out some quotes by noted ideology theorist Slavoj Zizek once again:
> “Ideology is strong exactly because it is no longer experienced as ideology… we feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.”
Here's another relevant one:
> I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating. It's not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at that point we are within ideology.
Point being, "that is just how the world works" is just a projection of how one's own ideology works. There's all sorts of assumptions about what constitutes power and to what goal one wields it encoded in a naive realist interpretation.
> They expand territory, they capture industries, etc, etc, etc,.
I don't think any of that is incompatible with what I claimed above. Of course, capture of industry etc is a mechanism by which larger ideological goals can be fulfilled.
> Do you take the same literal interpretations of other politicians' speeches?
I don't take literal interpretations of anyone's speeches, they are mostly useful for a look at an actors self-perception. (Not everyone talks about a collaborative world, you can contrast this directly with America First rhetoric as an example!). Of course, self-perception is a factor in evaluation, but so are the actual deeds being done. Open models are getting released.
> Well, I won't take that dream away from you, but you're gonna be disappointed in this particular case, in our lifetime, with this particular country, atleast :)
Capitalism is ending either way, once capital is fully unmoored from labor. The only question left is whether control over these new productive forces will be concentrated in the hands of a few companies or owned by the public.
The others, plural, meaning Gemini, Muse, and all the open weight models hosted by a competitive landscape of US providers. There is plenty of American players in the space outside of OpenAI and Anthropic if that’s the only thing you care about.
If Anthropic and OpenAI economics are as bad as they seem to be they deserve to fail, others will take over the remaining market. It’s not a team sport
It goes back to the parent poster’s question of whether or not she was doing it to manipulate people or if she genuinely looked up to Steve Jobs enough to want to emulate him down to his pitch.
I dont buy either framing. There is nothing better about immitating Jobs.
And using deeper voice is no worsr then putting on cloth to impress. Or using makeup to impress.
If people are irrationally taking deeper voices more serious, using deeper voice is not some kind of evil manipulation. People with higher pitch are not unserious, only treated that way a bit more.
Your deeper voice is not making you more valid or serious in any way. Yes, it is advantage. It is ok to mimic it to get equal advantage.
What does it matter if you’re not hitting your cap with OpenAI/Anthropic in the first place? This thread is apparently populated with the highest of powerusers running multiple OpenClaws. Us peasants aren’t concerned with meters or cost/token - just quality - and nobody comes close to OpenAI or Anthropic in that regard.
Pretty funny to say "us peasants aren't concerned with ... cost/token", as if most people ("peasants") won't find it absolutely insane to be paying $200/mo for a subscription.
Large corporations pay API rates: Claude teams for example can buy subscriptions for its members, until they reach 150 of them after which they need to migrate to org.
If that's the reason, then the solution sounds like a typical bad bureaucratic government - instead of fixing the problem (improved treatment for horses), ban the whole thing.
There is no business here that can afford any capital outlay, this is a bunch of mom-and-pop shops that rent stable slots (I think) and own medallions. No capital outlay -- nothing can really change.
The city could also spend money on the stables. And NYC NYS have spent money propping up stupid small businesses unable to take care of themselves before. But I do not endorse that outcome at all.
Personally, it’s my favorite book and I consider it better than the original series (although the original series is a hard prerequisite).
However, I wouldn’t call it “long” in the same way that I wouldn’t call The Count of Monte Cristo or Great Expectations long. Serialized stories are just naturally longer because readers want a sizable chunk every week/month, regardless of that inflating the total size or not.
reply