These kinds of choices are kind of pricing range as engineering decisions in the end.

People love to say how great it is for these alt clouds to have lower prices, until they're exposed to market forces with a company unable or unwilling to eat their profit margins.

The site has some really impressive technical aspects, but the educational angle is the most rare and special! The simplicity of the language and explanations disguise how difficult this is to do.

This is the original use of the internet- giving away free knowledge to people, perfectly suited for the medium of a website.

Spend for compute seems like it needs to increase to get the next iterations of models, and even if they IPO the money might run out before they can solidify their revenue streams.

All while Google just needs to survive long enough with their good-enough models and do it without really putting themselves in any existential financial risk.

And ideally the chinese models are also still there keeping everyone honest.

The true dystopic worst case is a Google monopoly on cutting edge AI.

I don't think it would work without a human in the loop but it is surprising to me how varied models' vibes are and how a system design varies by what it thinks is important to include and emphasize.

So this isn't as much of a financial engineering cost cutting move as it feels like to the type of person who truly calls because the require a human. It truly provides better service to the majority of people because they get their answer faster and more efficiently.

This is also demonstrated in the pricing of these systems at a per "open cases resolved"- they're putting their money where their mouth is.

Of course I'm also personally in the group where I call because I can already read a support page and I really need a human.... It could conceivably put true human support into another tier higher of perceived value.

But. The level of international coordination with vaccine rollouts and agreements between countries was way more than I had initially expected. Of course this feeling depends on what your own baseline expectations are.

My takeaway was that if the conditions arise that we all decide to do something about climate change (because of political conditions or because of actual effects) we (humanity) are willing to make big sudden changes

Stanford and SV have always had deep defense ties. Palmer Luckey and Palantir etc are just the latest iteration of this.

The whole Epstein thing (the money, I mean) just shows that money has always wanted to be moved around, and a certain class of people don't care how it gets done- I mean the arms dealers, but also the billionaires hiding money in their charities. A libertarian would say that crypto democratizes that for everyone. I don't think it can last forever though.

Because one wants to look like the other for very obvious reasons.

How many crypto people (with legitimate backgrounds just like the founders of Polymarket and Kalshi) stood up and said big things about freedom and the unbanked etc., turns out they were literally just scamming people- there are so many examples besides FTX.

Letting people bet on any random thing is not at all related to this "price everything" theory. If that was their real goal they wouldn't behave so much like a normal sports betting company. I have yet to actually hear anyone defend their actual actions in a plausible way.

One other possible title of this article could just be, don’t break UI conventions. Which is not the same thing.

Instead of trying to download and configure a date time thing (for something app specific like domain specific date ranges) rather than having to rely on the configuration of a larger library, then having to manage all future major version upgrades (and some of these npm libraries have major versions every year!) why not just create your own smaller surface area component? It’ll be literally zero maintenance compared to managing an npm dependency in your app.

Harvey is valued at $11b

In any case these same governments are probably also approving the purchase of Huawei cell tower equipment.

Looking at the Mythos benchmarks, it doesn't seem like the models are that close to being truly reliable for agentic tasks.

Is it a year away, or five? That's a big difference in deciding what to build today.

I do and would want to buy tech that I'm not coerced into to throwing away after a year. It's insane to be how many objects today have batteries that are sealed inside and are meant to be thrown away after- that should be regulated.

But that seems to me to be an implementation detail rather than aspect that's worthy of an entire manifesto.

I do think the political aspects of things like Ring and Flock cameras and Palantir are super important (the reenforcing of existing power structures part).

But I don't get the folding in of this idea that not consuming computing devices is part of the solution- Like I said, it feels like the planned obsolescence of all computing devices and software is fundamental to the field.

Moore's law is just a stand-in for the planned obsolescence of all computing related things almost since computers were invented, and the fundamental tech question is always, when thing x gets 10x cheaper/faster, what new use case gets unlocked? Right now it's AI model capability. Maybe also battery tech.

The idea of the slow growth of computing smells to me like the Bill Gates quote about 640k of RAM being enough for anyone.