I’ve worked with proposals in the past - they’re legally binding when you submit with a price attached. Lawsuits waiting to happen to any company foolish enough to entrust the process to AI. The manual review and corrections will take longer than actually doing the work with a human. Source: used frontier RFP response systems and they were just databases with some find/replace tools.

Fascinating! I’d like to learn more about how to interpret the results to be honest, the About is awesome and helpful.

I scored 1,100 total on my music moniker. It has been used in SoundCloud and also via streaming services/releases via DistroKid. Represented in all the models but of course not disproportionally large fame so to speak. It’s just a very unique setup, somewhat designed to stand out.

My writing account, newer within the past few years, is just under 1,000. The Kimi and DeepSeek pick that up a lot more. I wonder if they train on Medium more than the others…

Thanks for sharing!

Kids, like all humans, are subject to an uncomfortable reality that is dismissed far too often in discussions about leadership and regulations:

49% of all people are less intelligent than the average person.

What if 10% of all people are indistinguishably of average intelligence?

So much for hiring “smart creatives” and supporting their work I guess…source: Introduction section of 2014’s “How Google Works” (I returned it to the library after that, I’m not going to hate-read stuff even if it would give me some insight into Eric Schmidt’s career)

Your example is very helpful!

I interpret the case you mention as a necessary though jarring rebalancing - to the opposite pole - of the sycophantic prior implementations which would, in paraphrasing here, praise the user with framing like “Wow this is a fascinating comparison and you’re on to something that can change the world!” which has been documented (I’m not citing sources at this time, my bad I know).

The post definitely reads to me like the diary entry of a jilted friendship where for some reason the counter party got tired of being encouraging to everything and is, well, kind of not interested in hiding that anymore. YMMV.

Okay then provide a link to a Dropbox PDF or official documentation “demonstrating” the premise is “untrue” please. Or admit you’re blinded by faith. Or financially interested in the public believing in a hypothetical like your second sentence.

In short, citation needed or shens bruh.

If you're claiming "AI inference is sold at a loss", it's on you to prove it.

All we have actual evidence of is: some users use enough AI that the subscription is sold at a loss to them (up to degenerate cases: usage maxed out at all times), if billed by API metrics, while some other users are, by the same metrics, profitable (down to degenerate cases: a forgotten subscription with $20 a month and 0 usage).

We don't know how API prices relate to costs - we only have estimates. And we certainly don't know how much inference does an average subscription user spend.

If you have some sort of information that would decisively prove that the aggregate is "AI company N is losing money on subscriptions", then, show it.

Or is it you who's blinded by faith? Like some sort of AI bubble cultist? The bubble is real, you just have to believe in it?

Very well said. People are making a lot of claims when very little knowledge of the financials is public. If you actually look at the numbers, there are plenty of ways in which API revenue and forgotten subs could more than make the difference for power users. Even if power users are getting 10-20x their sub fee in tokens, the math could still work out. Personally, I doubt more than 5% of Claude subs even approach max usage, because it requires having so many agents running all of the time.

I imagine we'll know in a few months when these companies go public.

This is the most white collar “we call bullshit” type of writing I’ve seen in a long time and I’m here for it. Not a good sign for the next two AI IPOs either. SpaceX had the hubris to release their S-1 publicly and whatnot. This is going to be “Hot Garbage Summer” in the equities market lmao. GG VCs.

Uh, are you sure about that claim regarding surveillance over human history? Just because the technology has advanced does not entail the methods or concepts are novel. Quite the contrary in my view: the modern versions are natural evolutions of long traditions and customs. Having “rats” and “moles” reporting on behavior is, I mean, it predates written records of I’m not mistaken.

Today is a totally different scale. The German stasi needed a huge amount of people to handle all the incoming data and a lot of it fell through anyways l. Today you just throw a lot of compute at it and nothing can escape.

Yes you always had people snitching on each other but it was inefficient and hard to centralize. Today is different.

Answer:

During development, children are in a condition where their fears are predominant. The world is big and scary and they need conditions and support to begin to process their emotions, all of them, into what I consider a “rainbow.” Each should be adjacent to another, as life is best lived with access to and the benefit of each when appropriate circumstances call them from their “library” so to speak.

It’s not “forcing” a child to sit through it, as much as it is “presenting” them with an outside work of art which REFLECTS BACK TO THEM a validation of their experience along different stages of development.

One of the best examples of what I’m talking about is the book “Where the Wild Things Are” by Maurice Sendak. It is canon. Perhaps you had shitty parents who didn’t “make you” engage with literature.

An interviewer once asked him “Don’t you think the book is too scary for kids?” His reply lambasted the question with “What is wrong with you? Were you never a child? EVERYTHING IS SCARY TO A CHILD.”

So, there it is buckaroo. You may not like the tone of my response, but I think your question was phrased in a flippant and pedantic manner to begin with. Fire, meet fire, and you’re welcome.

I don't think everything's scary to a child. I think the scary things are. Lots of things are fun and play.