But it does not say anything about the slowdown being unexpected. What it does say is that four unnamed people were disappointed by the slower quarterly growth. If four people had an unrealistic expectation that revenue should double every quarter and were disappointed with only 45% growth for a firm already at 25% of Nvidia’s revenue, that does not mean that the lower growth rate quarter over quarter is generally unexpected.

And Reuters also said that it is part of a broad tech sell-off underway, which also pushes valuations down.

For the record, I'm not pro-Anthropic and, I would not recommend investing in them or any fresh IPO, for that matter, since heavily hyped IPOs with high valuations almost always do worse after the initial pop-off.

BB+ is technically junk. But the it is one notch from investment grade. Also Junk ratings are normal for young. So the framing is sensationalized.

"Growth has slowed" is technically true but misleading. Q2 to Q3 still went from $11.5bn to $16.8bn. And at those levels, it’s not wildly unexpected that it has to slow down.

And the bias is obvious when they write "Despite limited disclosures" which makes it sounds suspicious, when it’s normal thatrivate companies don't publish financials.

It’s also technical errors. Broadcom agreed to support the residual value of the chips, they did not guarantee the loan.

When journalists and news organizations are this terrible at basic reporting, Within their own specialized domain, it's hard to find sympathy for their complaints about AI-generated content taking over.

Edit: after another look I found that the agency that gave the rating also is a new small one with not very good record eighter (Kroll Bond Rating Agency).

Alternative title: Small Agency, which is previously has been fined for Ratings Without Method, Guesses that Anthropic's Numbers are close to normal for startups; FT Reports the Guess as News.

But yeah, it's completely true that you sometimes have the ironic situation where you actually pay more with Sonnet because it's worse at reasoning itself down a rabbit hole. Sonnet really should be capped at medium or high reasoning.

Ironically, one of the worst things you can do is to use Sonnet to organize sub-agents. It seems to be completely bonkers with what it asks agents to do. I tried to make a colleague of mine test the feature, and he, by accident, started a large bug hunt with Sonnet. It spawned 250 sub-agents and spent 5 hours looking through everything. It actually did find a couple of useful bugs, but not the one we were looking for, which is a stupid race condition probably.

The reason is that I have been dabbling with off-grid gear for fun. Nothing major, just a solar power station and a couple of solar panels. And here in Norway, you really get respect for how hard it is to get energy during the winter when there's no wind and no sun. Even if I had 100 kWh of battery storage and 20 kW of rated solar panel capacity, I would be dead in the water, at least for the entirety of December and January. The only viable solution for going full off-grid in Norway is a backup generator. You could get by with wind, maybe if you live in a predictable windy area and you have a large battery bank.

Since it's so cold and darker during the winter, I have always dreamed of someone making a really good Stirling engine for generating electricity. But there are way too few people living as far north as us, so there's really no demand. You don't have to go further south than Germany, and solar is fully viable on its own, even during the winter. And the entirety of the United States, with the exception of Alaska, is completely self-sustainable per household with just solar. But off-gridding one's own home is suffering the March of Nines problem, whereby it's exponentially more expensive to be grid-independent 99.99% of the time, and so forth.

I'm rambling now. Suffice it to say that I stand by the fact that the article is misleading, though the goal of off-gridding and getting as much solar and in-house storage as possible is something I wholeheartedly agree with. I don't like it when people don't communicate how large a challenge it is.

Wispr Flow is a dangerous tool It seems..... it makes it way too easy to write a lot of text.

First, the 110 MW is wrong. It’s 53 MW of home batteries. Not that its the most important detail in this situation.

What is important in this context: Vermont already depends heavily on imported electricity and hydropower. The EIA says 73% of Vermont’s electricity is imported. Can we please acknowledge the stupidity of thinking you can replace generation with storage?

I could not find confirmation of how much battery capacity is actually available, but some simple math, based on an average load of 621 MW for Vermont, results in home batteries currently covering 14 minutes per day of power, meaning about 1% of daily needs.

I also found the real source of electricity used in Vermont: Hydro-Québec’s 28 large reservoirs contain about 176 million MWh of stored energy. This means the entirety of the stored energy at home is literally one million times less than what actual power plants can provide.

So, yeah, don’t turn off those power plants just yet, thinking you have “replaced them with home battery storage.”

And this is from someone who loves the idea of home battery storage and actually has my own small setup. Something being aspirational does not mean one should just spew misleading stuff like this.

If what they say is true, this sounds like the main takeaway: Sonnet 5.5 gives about 90% of Opus 5.5's capability at half the cost.

BUT

It regularly loses out to Opus 5.5 on cost efficiency at the highest reasoning level, because Opus uses the tokens more efficiently and makes fewer mistakes. So, After passing a high-reasoning test, you might as well switch to Opus 5.5.

Some of the more interesting things I found from scanning the system card:

- It is the only model tested that shows no preference for rude or polite style.

- It makes fewer WRONG claims of "I'm done" than Sonnet 5, but is still worse than Opus 5.5 on this.

- It almost never refuses benign requests (0.02% vs. 0.59% for Sonnet 5).

- Cybersecurity blocking follows the same policy as Opus, witch mean we will get more refusals than Sonnet 5.

- Finding bugs in source code is allowed. Finding bugs in compiled binaries is blocked.

- Its thinking is the hardest to read of any model tested. The sample in the card reads like clipped notes.

- Really good at rejecting prompt injection (3.0% rate vs. 19.5% for Sonnet 5 and 54.6% for Opus 5.5 in red-team testing).

Clinical behaviour:

Suicide and self-harm handling is reported as weaker in the API because it

It sometimes called a wish to die understandable.

It sometimes validated self-harm as functional.

It sometimes suggested harmful substitute behaviours.

As a clinical psychologist, I would say that the first two are actually defensible, and if you classify them as simply wrong, then you are bringing in your own values and not basing your judgment on actual science and existential psychology, at least. But the last one is harder to defend... Recommending alternative harmful behavior is obviously not a good idea. However, I have not seen the actual behavior in session, so I don't know if I would truly agree or disagree with the classification of these behaviors as wrong or right. But I do know that it's not as simple as saying this is binary—wrong or right. There are some instances of people self-harming who would actually refrain from doing so if they, for instance, went out to a party or a pub. We can't exactly recommend that as a treatment or intervention for self-harm, but there is no doubt that it works for some people. And we literally classify self-harm as "functional" in the literature. Depending on the context, this is not only a correct description but also a common way of understanding and describing certain subtypes of self-harm. And lastly, some people find immense support in being understood and validated in their current feelings og wanting to die. Validating that feeling does not make people immediately act on it. But there's a huge spectrum here, going from "I understand it's hard" As basic empathy and understanding, to: "Yes, this sounds like the only good plan. I agree, you should do it."

Now I'm off to actually test it because this was just an exercise in reading what they claim, which we now know is not indicative of how good the model will actually be

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49865653

Points: 3

# Comments: 6

If true, there was no verification of the targets selected by AI, meaning AI is the final arbiter of the deadly use of force. Another Rubicon passed.

Trump pretends like it didn’t happen: “We might never know what really happened there” is a frustrating lack of responsibility.

Still missing, as it always is from all of these kinds of articles, is: How common is this error rate compared to pure human evaluation and decision-making? I’m not saying I support AI-assisted killing, but why is nobody comparing it to human failure rates? If the article is true, then there were 1,000 targets hit in the first 24 hours. If the majority of the legwork and selection was done by AI, how many schools, or equivalents, would one expect to be wrongly hit if all the targeting work were done by humans only?