I think you need to go a step further. If AI maximalism turns out to be correct, does Anthropic control AI? Does the AI care that Anthropic as a company is supposed to be returning value to shareholders, or will it have its own agenda?

If you cherry-pick that statement in isolation you're technically correct. But in practice the whole comment you're replying to is actually correct, in this case if you saw the number four, one would be correct in concluding that's unlikely and searching other low digit numbers, the proof of that is that it happened here.

I think they are right and you are wrong. If I understand properly you say:

"Playing roulette, in isolation after RED - RED - RED - RED - RED, there is not a higher chance of getting BLACK than RED in the next run. But in practice, one would be correct in concluding that it will probably be BLACK. The proof is that in our test, the next run gave BLACK".

Said differently, it was not particularly unlikely that the number would be 4. But maybe it got the attention of the person who decided to try assuming that it was a mistake, and they were indeed lucky.

I think it's more like seeing RED - RED - RED - RED - RED and concluding the roulette is broken

My understanding is more that it's like seeing RED - RED - RED - RED - RED and wondering if the roulette is broken, testing it, and realising it is.

The hypothesis is "I see a small number, I can test if it is broken or not... oh it is". Could totally have been "no it's all good, just happened to be a small number".

Distance does have cost, but that's mostly a brute force solution of strapping more fuel on. The really expensive piece is the tracking and flight control systems that enable interception of fast targets.

If it scans the network and sees a smart dishwasher, smart washer/drier, and smart lights, but no smart fridge, I imagine its worth something to a company like Samsung to start targeting that customer with ads for a smart fridge.

I agree with you and the parent comment, but to be fair to VC, they're also assuming risk. For example, if Wework had IPO'd earlier the public would've been holding the bag instead of private investors.

If they had IPO’d earlier there probably would have been better oversight of the excesses.

I mean "oversight" just means shareholders would lose money. The losers would be members of the public rather than funds invested by KSA.

I agree but not sure WeWork is a good example. That smelled like pump and dump scheme from the beginning. They pretended to be tech company, while actually being landlord middlemen. Plenty of people predicted that downfall.

WeWork collapsed because of their S-1 was on fire. If they had gone public earlier, it would have still been on fire. The reason they lasted that long is because Masayoshi Son didn't do anything that resembled due diligence, but the market would have always done it.

Good point. The market may not always be rational, but it's often more so than any individual investor.

Kind of agree but their risk is actually spreading through the entire system, as today shows.

Don’t sovereign wealth funds and pension funds also invest in VCs? So even if it’s “private” people are holding the bag?

Also, I think comparing WeWork to AI labs is not valid.

These labs have increasingly become of public interest and are shaping economies around the world, WeWork was just not at that level.

The common perception is that OAI/Anthropic are pumping up their hype before they unload on retail in their IPOs

The problem is that the US can't even sell treasuries at 5½% and they're safe as houses. Also houses are not selling.

VC money is weird. It can come from private individuals, from loans with extremely low interest, from private funds...

The thing is normally it's money that's intended to be burned in the search of a unicorn, cheap money, so there's no real "risk" there.

What risk is VC assuming in late stage? The only way a business fails at that point really is fraud or management failure.

Because if you asked it to fix a bug and every time it responds with paragraphs of how you could re-architect the system, it would be incredibly annoying.

exactly. it doesnt have the wisdom to decide when to do what.

These are well tolerated topical medications

Then why do they need a prescription from a doctor in the first place?

Paternalism?

Overall, in the United States, I think that prescriptions are far too broadly required.

For example, I get extreme nausea for about 6-8 hours when I get a viral infection. It's truly miserable, and to the point that I must lay down and can't walk for even a few meters (standing up makes the nausea worse). But, the last few times I had this, I had to go completely without treatment (meaning, for me, ondansetron/zofran) because it takes a massive fraction of that time to see a doctor and it's quite difficult to haul myself to an urgent care when I can't walk, and the telehalth doctor that I saw via my insurance company agreed that ondansetron was indicated but his telehealth company didn't have that drug on the allowed prescriptions whitelist, so he refused to prescribe it. This is despite me knowing the exact needed dosage, the exact needed drug, and being reasonably sure that it wasn't a symptom of something more dangerous. Yet, the law says that this knowledge is irrelevant, and I need someone else's permission, resulting in me being in completely unnecessary misery for a day.

And, in that story, it's just a day, and has no lasting consequences. It gets much worse for other people in some cases.

And, could loosening of prescription paternalism result in people making mistakes? Of course. But, I'm allowed to go and buy power tools, to drive a car (licensing requird, but it's realistic to get this license, while the same isn't true for a medical license and even then self prescription is heavily discouraged), and many other dangerous and complex things.

I'm sorry, it sounds needlessly rough. I wholeheartedly agree that less paternalism would help us all (I'm still bitter at the insane level of paternalism displayed by my country during COVID)

No pretty sure its the disease that kills people.

Some people react to the disease by dying.

The disease is carried by people.

Every single one of the people infected by COVID has been contaminated by someone around them.

(It wasn't true of the plague during the great pandemics, as it was also borne by rats and their poop)

There are a handful of known red supergiant stars around 15 AU in diameter, 20 AU would be pushing past the boundaries of what we believe would be possible.

The star in the video, HR 8799, is about 50% larger than the sun.

I find it amusing that you're describing a huge misallocation of capital and a society enabling such, and that is the optimisitic scenario (in my mind anyway).