What's suspicious about this is not whether it may or may not be possible (it likely isn't), it's that he is using it to borrow money now, that is not collectible in the case of a default. You get a huge exit because you overpromise today, and when it turns out you aren't a prophet, those that trusted you cannot be made whole.
People and the law keeps treating this as "just a sales pitch", but it's really theft in disguise and should come with evidence on an S1 filing.
What do you mean it’s not collectible in case of default? Are you under the impression that money that you borrow before the IPO is excluded from the bancruptcy claims?
>> Are you under the impression that money that you borrow before the IPO is excluded from the bancruptcy claims?
it's being "borrowed" in the sense that there's an implicit promise as part of the IPO sales pitch, but shareholders are last in line to collect in case of something as extreme as a bankruptcy - and that's if there is anything left if that was to happen, which by definition is not frequent.
>because you overpromise today, and when it turns out you aren't a prophet, those that trusted you cannot be made whole.
Why are these people obligated to trust Amodei? Why are these people obligate to hand Anthropic money?
I really hate this "Investors should be protected from losses" narrative you see pop up now and again like that isn't the entire natural order on how we conduct these things and somebody not being made "whole" is somehow unfair. It's not theft, Dario will simply accept your money if you give it to him.
You make a bet you can lose. These are grown adults making decisions.
I sure hope no major indices bend or break the rules about including bubble stocks freshly IPOd companies in them, since my entire prospects of retirement are tied up in those indices being relatively stable!
I really hate this "Investors should be protected from losses" narrative - right, we should also retire the SEC and every investor protection law and regulation, because what where we thinking?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: nobody pulling the strings in this industry gives a shit about anybody, or really anything other than increasing their available capital. They’re powered by some combination of greed, inertia, and religious fervor. Their primary role is to groom investor sentiment and the weak job market means they needn’t feign benevolence to recruit competitively. This is the purest expression of post-.com era SV culture I’ve witnessed since I started in tech nearly 30 years ago.
There are people who genuinely want to help others because they realize it is the right thing to do. Also applies to organizations governed by such people.
I used to take my truck to Larry Roberts of Roberts auto. He’s a neighbor and friend and did oil changes and basic stuff. Larry closed up shop cause he can’t work on modern cars and doesn’t have the tools or staff to handle anything more than basics for cars older than the 00s.
Larry is great but he’s not even relevant to the discussion because you might as well be describing a DIY or hobby shop.
None of the people or organizations you describe are relevant to how the world works, they are temporary outliers with limited impact for a brief period
Even then, Larry didn’t work for free and wasn’t running it out of the goodness of his heart. He did it for money
The only people I know doing shit that isn’t for money are the people that actively work on the trails that I walk on in Northern Virginia and guess what, they work on them so they can have nice trails not because somebody else is going to use the trail.
This is almost literally a page ripped out of Kapital vol. 1. It's a pleasant dose of reality on a website dedicated to our tech billionaires' revision of their own history as self-made entrepreneurs.
Absolutely false. I’m not young, and I’ve worked in many different industries. Once you get away from for-profit businesses controlled by third party investors, that could not be further from the truth. Having monetary motives doesn’t mean you only have monetary motives, or lack willingness to address your industry’s ecosystem, employees, and the communities you touch. Believe it or not, some people that run successful companies have pride, ethics, and red lines they will not violate to pump up their valuation or throw a few extra bucks in their pockets. I left software because considering anything other than money is anathema to its business culture. I’ve worked extensively with people in arms manufacturing and even they are more motivated by business ethics than any executive I’ve encountered from the SV software scene in what feels like a fucking decade. For an industry that was started by people that wanted to make money by solving people’s problems using innovation and cutting edge tooling, this is a pretty pathetic state of affairs.
I was a military officer for 17 years, the only thing that matters is your unit/wing/program office is your budget. The only thing more important is readiness and guess what the main thing that effects…your budget
The idea that arms manufacturers are more ethical is a joke - at best you get propagandized people ignoring how their munitions are used while banking 150k salary minimums.
I’ve run mutual aid cooperatives and whatever you try to do will be overrun by private equity and your market will be closed and the people who show up will be flighty and noncommittal
I currently am ED for a non-profit that I will not allow to be used for profit making - almost 100% of the people who ask to volunteer or show up do it for their own promotion or to jumpstart their product it’s maddening the number of times I have to say no.
I am the founder of the 150,000 person ultramarathon subreddit and I’ve only found two (2) moderators in the last 15 years that aren’t trying to promote something for money.
There are no organizations that escape this because at the root level you can’t find more than a literal handful of people who aren’t in it for the money - even if thats not their direct reason it’s usually a secondary reason
Even “monks” go out and write books and buy fancy cars
There doesn’t exist in my daily survey of social organizations ANY, and I mean there isn’t any single organization, that does what it says it does without trying to make a profit in some way.
> I’ve run mutual aid cooperatives and whatever you try to do will be overrun by private equity and your market will be closed and the people who show up will be flighty and noncommittal
… yeah… right…
> Even “monks” go out and write books and buy fancy cars
You are acting like a bitter, cynical edge lord that only sees the worst in the best people. Ironically, I’ll bet you think you’re the most rational observer you know.
What you say you see in the world says far more about how you see than it says about the world. Later.
I don't get this line of thinking. What is the point of profit. Why do we pursue it? And what good is it if the society in which it is useful no longer exists or cannot function to let you benefit from such profit?
There is something really wrong with all these "extrapolate a single part of society to the max because law allows it". Systems don't work this way, every single system requires balance and that balance does not depend on law. Law was created so we could strive to achieve balance in the system. It's imperfect but somehow we think the imperfection is intentional. It's backwards.
I wish the simple “you have a product, I have money” relationship was possible - right, and then your child spends 100k in amazon orders and we blame the merchants for not having better checks. Or the state fines the merchant for not ensuring that a person did indeed check in or attest to something personally. How do you prove the LLM collected your TOS agreement? I used to want this too, but having engineered multiple systems in regulated industries, automation will never be as simple as we want it to be.
The product-for-money part is never the problem. It's always the refunds, the chargebacks, the customer service complaints, the person filing a complaint with regulators.
A lot of the systems that relied on low levels of these situations are about to be tested by waves of agents doing everything they can to take advantage of the rules: Chargebacks, complaints, refunds, cancellations.
I don’t get this. So today he can build the experience he wants with little effort (he likely spent lots of tokens). You made no judgement in the quality or on his experience, only on the age of the repo. Why exactly is that?
I get there will be a lot of crapware, but you’re hackers no? Why all the gatekeeping even amongst yourselves? How much time did the openclaw guy take to built it? A weekend?
Sure, you could say “no thanks”. But all the labs certainly thought it was useful enough to replicate. And yes, it was, still is an insecure mess littered with bugs, but why are we all so repulsed?
It’s a genuine need. I build my own version of this, also on go, haven’t shared bc I am not sure how legal it is to distribute, but I have been using it for months and definitely beats running 6+ apps that keep breaking. I run one binary + jellyfin, never going back.
The problem is not the vibecoding, it is the release of a public facing internet app that is not a day old, hence it is impossible to know if it has security issues. He is supposedly a security engineer and he RELEASES a repo with less than a day old? how do you know it is secure? Again, this is something that will interact with the open internet.
Gatekeeping would be "do not write vibecoded apps for yourself", which is not the case here, this is releasing code for the public in an irresponsible manner.
I bet it's insecure, software is a process, and this is the point of open source, if the contept is interesting to you, you can look at the code, and contribute. Maybe spend some tokens to check fo vulnerabilities. Maybe you can afford, or have access to, mythos, scan it, give them a report to address. Of all the things you could say, "13h old repo, no thanks" is likely the least helpful. It's just intentionally discouraging, intentionally invalidating. I think we should do better.
I mean, every repo was 13 hours at some point. can't hardly get security updates unless others can see and review it.
I mean, I feel you... there's no way I'm running it when it's this new... I'll let others spend their tokens probing it and check it out in a month... no shade in the dude for releasing it, but anyone who has it running right now inside their network... I hope nothing bad happens.
One interesting change for me is I used to have zero time to write personal emails, but due to AI making me a lot more time efficient, I now can and do write personal emails for things I’m just generally interested in, allowing me to create relationships outside my immediate professional or social sphere.
OP could be read either way, but the dev environment threat is not rocket science to manage: LLMs can only do what the harnesses their responses are embedded into explicitly enable them to do [1]. And once the setup is secured, it tends to stay secured without additional effort, unless one explicitly wants to alter its granted capabilities.
Auditing output by contrast is a continuous cost. On the third hand, it's one that most will want to pay anyway.
The "embed into shipped code so subtly humans can't spot it" vector is sci fi ish. Less plausible than old fashioned trusting-trust issues, and most folks have managed to sleep at night for the last 40ish years that spectre has haunted.
[1] I guess the model could return output that buffer overflows the harness and exceeds its intended ability, but that seems far-fetched too
I get the concept of tokenmaxxing, but instill don’t get how you do that. Do people just do random work unrelated things with their company subscriptions? Or are they just intentionally inefficient at their work? And how would you go about telling an LLM to waste tokens?
"good objective feedback" - right, I think advice in general is bad because it tries to bite size a complex system, that is society/humanity. Feedback is giving someone information they can act on, along with the rest of context they have of their situation. No need for you to know them deeply, just the interaction.
There are things that can work, and things that likely won't work, and most people know these. Then there is a space of things that usually work and things that may not work, and you can't fit these into a person without knowing a lot of variables about them and the environment around them, like what and who they know, their personality, their competence (not just their resume), and many, many other variables. So advice defaults to guessing most of these variables to find some direction.
And I think it boosts advisors' ego, makes advisees feel temporarily better, even motivated, but YMMV by a lot.
This is why the good advisors also change the variables in your favor, like introduce you to their network, coach, etc. And often this costs you something. Like money, equity, whatever.
People and the law keeps treating this as "just a sales pitch", but it's really theft in disguise and should come with evidence on an S1 filing.
reply