Everyone I know and their mom is using AI, technical or not. The question is, is it profitable to run a frontier AI lab and sell inference while spending billions on R&D.
Anthropic could be super profitable right now if they stopped developing new models. But then they'd quickly fall behind because there's not much of a moat. Maybe the only ones who will survive this are huge companies like Google with separate incomes who can swallow the cost of staying on top.
If you see a developer using git on a Mac laptop in a coffeeshop, you can intercept that and gain their repo and probably password hashes pretty easily.
I'm Hungarian and there have been countless positive changes in only half a year. The people in charge are also way more competent than the last lot who all got promoted based on loyalty.
* Billions in EU funds restored
* State funded propaganda shut down
* Tax cuts for low earners
* European prosecutor's office joined and anti corruption agency established with real power, crooks already going to jail
I agree. The part I enjoyed was designing interesting solutions to problems, the coding itself was often tedious. Now I can just focus on the fun and creative part.
Or no job. I feel like so many people are stuck in the current capabilities of the models they use - what happens if AI ends up surpassing humans in all domains? Not saying that's guaranteed but it's certainly possible, and I feel like so many folks telling optimistic stories about how "AI focuses on the tedious stuff" have not really grasped with the implications of much more advanced AI.
I think I'm pretty aware of the implications. It's just not something I have control over. But right now, I'm enjoying getting stuff done. If they eventually take my job or upend civilization, it's going to happen whether I use them or not.
"Software" isn't the point. You can do the exact same math on CPU or GPU. OpenGL supports nearest neighbor texture filtering on whatever hardware you run it on since 1992, one year before Doom even came out.
But in practice, this didn't happen, which is what TFA seems to be all about. So it's not incorrect to talk about software renderers (of the time) vs hardware accelerated graphics (of the time) and how they were used in practice (at the time). It's just cumbersome to write "at the time", and it's understood from context; at least I did. It also helps to look at the rest of the blog's articles and what the blog is about...
I disagree. The article is making claims about software renderers of the time vs hardware accelerated renderers of the time, as they typically worked. It's missing the point completely to believe the author of a blog seemingly dedicated to old games and old hardware is making a general claim about software renderers and GPUs as understood now. Context matters!
The author didn't qualify every word he wrote with "of the time" and "typically", possibly because he didn't expect their article to be nitpicked on HN, but a cursory reading shows that's what he meant.
Anthropic could be super profitable right now if they stopped developing new models. But then they'd quickly fall behind because there's not much of a moat. Maybe the only ones who will survive this are huge companies like Google with separate incomes who can swallow the cost of staying on top.
reply