I don't think anyone is saying they FOR SURE didn't cultivate a couple flowers and magic mushrooms.

If they were an agricultural society resembling anything like the ones we see later, there are several things you'd expect to find.

For everyone else who is conscious of cost, you're already seeing this being built into harnesses.

Almost certainly, you'll see versions of this from all the Chinese labs as fast as humanly possible.

If I had to guess, Cursor/Grok or Google/Antigravity will be the first major players to natively support something like this to drive down cost, as they're primarily the budget conscious choices.

I would be astounded if Anthropic leads the way on a cost reduction.

> Sonnet 5.5 generates outputs 30%+ faster than Sonnet 5, making it our fastest Sonnet model to date.

This isn't enough. Sonnet 5 was arguably the most cost ineffective model ever released at the time of a release.

They need something competitive on speed and cost with Luna or Gemini Flash 3.8 (certainly they aren't getting to DeepSeek v4.1 Flash) - this is literally a year behind.

Anthropic continues to be a Fable/Opus only company. They're going to get left behind as workloads shift more and more to more cost-effective good-enough models. They're 10-100x behind in terms of speed and cost.

I've almost exclusively been using Anthropic for design and review, as it almost never makes sense to use any of their models for implementation (90%+ token usage) - except in the rare cases it's something too complex for a number of 10-100x cheaper models (and more importantly for me 5-10x faster, too).

For me, it's less about cost. I'm not doing anything that can't be done with a $200 subscription and minimal intelligence on what models to use. It's primarily about speed. I don't have an entire work day to give Opus / Sonnet a task that Flash can get done 95% as good in 30m.

This is YET AGAIN another Sonnet model that is just a FAR worse version of Opus at every part of the cost AND speed curve.

Hopefully they release a Haiku that actually has a reason for existing.

Even in the budget industry, your nightly utility usage comes close to $10, consumables are $3+.

Hotel stays are typically taxed higher than typical sales tax.

Once you add that in, real estate taxes, and any corporate taxes - you're getting close to the $50 price point...

That's before you factor in the cost of maintaining the building, or the financing to buy the building itself (or any profit).

Are we supposed to live in a world where everyone's entitled to be able to stay in hotel rooms for 1 hour of minimum wage labor? Because, until we have far more automation, I don't see how that makes any possible sense.

Why are you only allowed to live forever if you have kids?

Seems like someone seeking immortality should be willing to do for the elixir if they want it even a little bit...

Where?

What's your definition of "rapidly"?

I could see an argument for price of human intelligence going down - we're essentially in a global stagflation - which feels like a recession (sometimes moreso) even if it isn't technically one...

Rapidly? I think we have different definitions, or you're only looking in a niche.

I'd also argue that global stagflation doesn't yet have anything to do with AI. My crystal ball doesn't work. Things could change quickly. But I don't see any evidence now.

But I imagine this is orders of magnitude more expensive / less efficient than whatever Waymo is already doing, right?

The cool thing is that 1) it's theoretically more generalizable, 2) if we wait 18 months, it'll be 100x cheaper, and another 100x cheaper likely in 18 more months - at that point - something like a Mac Studio inside a humanoid could have these generalized capabilities, and a lot of Robotics problems start to look more feasible - especially when you consider how much better the models could be if highly specialized.

This would cost $0.15 to $0.20 per average trip to NOT plug in.

Average person spending $100k on a car would likely pay that without a second thought.

I wish it could run interpreted to massively speed up development, and that it had a Mull-like mutant testing framework so that mutants didn't take hours and tens-to-hundreds of gigabytes of space.

> That didn't happen.

> And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

> And if it was, it was AI's fault, not mine.

It's also less clear what a lot of their metrics mean. Does Cost per Task include only things that can be verified to work and passed? As best I can tell, it does not.

I'm less concerned if one model's cost per task is $0.10 and another model's cost is $1.50 if the $0.10 task got it right 1% of the time and the $1.50 model got it right 66% of the time.

An equalized / weighted cost/time per task is much more valuable - being massively penalized for taking a lot of time and ultimately not passing when OTHER models did pass.