>After graduation, she worked on Wall Street, first at JPMorgan Chase and then Lehman Brothers. She later joined the United States Foreign Service.

Looks pretty wall street to me.

> Before the doomers come in, you get $200 in API credits every month for claude -p usage. Usage counts against those API credits.

So which is it $300/day is trivial to consume or $200/month is a completely reasonable limit, it can't be both.

"I made enough copies for everyone" isn't a valid defense for copyright infringement.

Likewise with AI the appearance of reasoning without the substance could lead to boring exchanges of plausible slop rather than meaningful discourse.

Current US interventions should be read as a sign of weakness - an inability to shape events without resorting to naked aggression. Global hegemony can not be maintained through force alone.

The current discourse around "AI", swarms of agents producing mountains of inscrutable spaghetti, is a tell that this is the future the big players are looking for. They want to create a captive market of token tokers who have no hope of untangling the mess they made when tokens were cheap without buying even more at full price.

If you own equity in Anthropic you should care about that cost. Maybe you are willing to tolerate it to win market share, but for you to make the most profit you need that cost to shrink.

Anthropic's models may be similar in parameter size to model's on open router, but none of the others are in the headlines nearly as much (especially recently) so the comparison is extremely flawed.

The argument in this article is like comparing the cost of a Rolex to a random brand of mechanical watch based on gear count.

This administration is comfortable with blatantly picking winners and OpenAI is better connected with the admin than Anthropic.

Looks like you're right.

The Erlang runtime can start a scheduler for every core on a machine and, since processes are independent, concurrency can be achieved by spawning additional processes. Processes communicate by passing messages which are copied from the sender into the mailbox of the receiver.

As an application programmer all of your code will run within a process and passively benefit from these properties. The tradeoff is that concurrency is on by default and single threaded performance can suffer. There are escape hatches to run native code, but it is more painful than writing concurrent code in a single-threaded by default language. The fundamental assumption of Erlang is that it is much more likely that you will need concurrency and fault tolerance than maximum single thread performance.

My point is why are your economic motivations valid while his aren’t?

How could a practical LLM enthusiast make a non-economic argument in favor of their use? They’re opaque usually secretive jumbles of linear algebra, how could you make a reasonable non-economic argument about something you don’t, and perhaps can’t, reason about?