Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dctwin's commentslogin

Important to note that $72bn of that loss is some accounting thing and not really relevant wrt. the solvency of Anthropic


Accounting thing in the sense that those are expenses that have not been paid in cash, but with options for the future Anthropic shares.

So they might not be very relevant for the solvency of Anthropic, but that means that if their IPO flops they will also pull down others with them.

Regardless how they have paid for them, the expenses of Anthropic remain many times greater than their revenues. By accepting to not be paid now, their creditors are also gambling on their future success.


Cf. Blums speedup theorem for an extreme example of this


I just want to say that this is a really great article, probably my favourite explanation of cpp coroutines - thank you


Thank you so much, I'm happy to hear that the article has been useful for you.


Am I reading this right? Opus + Composer did a comparable job to Fable, at ~1/19th the price, and half the LoC?


Yea, looks like it (at least for their v2). Fable did much better in V1, but once they added their tooling around it, Opus + Composer ended up doing better (>0.8 Grade on the SQLite chart) for the final product. Granted, Fable reached a 'good' result (0.7~) in a much faster timeframe.


Point is, frontier models don't necessarily are better than a swarm of non-frontier ones for these scoped problems. IMO frotnier models excel at underspec'd or more complex problems where ideation and exploration are key (and that's where they become crazy expensive).


I'm struggling to use Fable correctly. Everything I do ends up getting flagged and reverted back to Opus. Need to do some digging.


Anthropic wants it that way so they can’t be sued… the correct answer is don’t, switch to Kimi K3 for much more usage, the same quality of model, and no hidden practices :/


The layoffs haven't even really started yet... I'm very worried about the next two years


Oh I think I finally groked what you suggested! Something like

template <StringLiteral str> static constexpr Key<str> key

in the class namespace - I think this this would work, but if I understand this correctly, You would need to do like

User user {...}; user[User::key<"myKey">]

Which actually is not so bad...


Whether or not this is useful (I am also not sure), the JSON doesn't need to survive into runtime at all. If you include the JSON, do a bunch of `if constexpr`, and never touch the JSON outside of a constexpr context, it doesn't have to any footprint on your binary. (I'm not sure if #embed will force stuff to stay in your binary even if you never reference it at runtime)


That's what I meant by "even if it's transformed". Parsing JSON at compile-time to store in some global variable/constant is highly sus imho.


You're right to point out that this is really 'first class JSON', rather than the Pydantic/Jackson type thing where the json barely exists and is immediately transformed into your models and classes.

Thanks for reading the article though, that's cool. I am a daw_json_link fan


Build up the test suite inside static asserts, or a macro that lets you switch. It will be really nice when you update right and your IDE will tell you before you even hit compile because clangd found an issue.


Despite my writing the article I agree


Yes, the nonconstexpr version does just that, unless I misunderstood your question. See also boost::spirit for a 'big' version of this


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: