for me personally it's two reasons:

1) Brockman ($25M) and Altman ($1M) both personally donated to Trump/MAGA.

2) Anthropic pushed back against DOD's demand for unrestricted use of AI to kill people while OpenAI eagerly said "please use ours!".

Same. But even worse than all that: OAI erased Anthropic's red lines with the DOW, making it socially acceptable for every other AI company to do the same, creating a "race to the bottom."

I think OAI actually legitimately increased p(doom) for us all. Very strange behavior for a company that is supposedly concerned about x-risk.

dumping ground because they spent the last 20 years convincing everyone with a 401k it belonged in index funds.

index funds will be the cause of the next catastrophic collapse

elaborate please

easy: 1. Shit goes into S&P 500 (pump phase)

2. Shit goes to 0. Your 401(k) invested into S&P 500 takes a dive (dump phase)

3. Retail holding bags (full of shit) phase.

Case study: Tesla, with a P/E ratio in the hundreds along with declining sales and TAM, is a part of the S&P 500 and, consequently, of many people's 401(k)s.

Index funds are market cap weighted. As companies fail, as they always do (median lifespan of S&P companies is about 15 years), you have less of it.

Buy high, sell low in other words?

Well... in normal times they would be entering at the bottom of the index due to the company beginning to grow, the purchase of which is being funded by a firm exiting the index due to shrinking, so assuming you have bought and held units in the fund, most of the time an index fund is buying low and selling low.

And then when you sell your units, hopefully in aggregate the index is worth more than it was when you entered...

"That's the point: just pump the shit and offload it to retail. Yeah, it's less than 1% of the S&P 500, so who would even notice?"

Tesla is 1.75% of Vanguard SP500 index. It could go to zero and most investors wouldn’t notice.

Isn't it a nice bussiness, pulling 2% from sp500, I wish I could join.

not really. just a capacity planning issue on that side. much harder challenge is continuing to train better models.

having a trillion dollars that need 5x payment un 5 years is insane promise by anything but government.

like when you owe a bank a billion dollars, thats the banks problem.

> It's really hard to justify $1000 for it when the Switch 2 is $450

For someone without an existing library, sure, but if you have a massive existing Nintendo/Switch1 or Steam library, that's going to drive your decision making far more than the price tag.

I think that's a factor for sure, but is less important (generally) as the price gap increases. The Steam Deck also has a disadvantage in that only some of your existing library will be playable on the device.

There's definitely a price point for some where it will make sense to rebuild your library on the Switch vs pay the higher cost of a Deck.

The nice thing about the Switch 2 is you can find a plethora of games at your local library (if you have one, that is). That's essentially how my wife played 20+ games with her Switch 1.

apparently not high enough. already OOS.

I watched a three hour video interviewing gaming hardware companies. One thing that came up was that pricing fluctuations don't actually mean anything in a market with zero liquidity. "When ram prices dropped 5%, recently, they probably only sold 20 units at that price."

steam summer sale > looking for jobs

I think feature flags, remote configs, and experiments are all the same thing. Semantically they differ in how you're applying the config and interpreting the outcomes.

I don't think redis existed back when this industry was called IT

I still think IT is more descriptive than Tech.

And the doctors at the hospital where I work still call us the "IT people".

Fire is ‘tech’, the wheel is ‘tech’. People using ‘tech’ when they mean ‘computers’ or ‘software’ needs to stop.

Of course it writes a lot of code. It gets paid per token. That's guaranteed future income every additional line of technical debt.

>> Of course it writes a lot of code. It gets paid per token.

I don't buy it. I think a much more likely reason it leans towards adding code is because deleting code carries inherent risk: it can break things in major ways or minor ways or very visibly or invisibly. Adding new code, on the other hand, is a lot safer: the only parts that can break are those the AI touched inside its own working context. So it doesn't have to go down rabbit holes and potentially create bigger and bigger messes.

Periodically you can also ask it to review the recent changes and see if there is a risk-free way to streamline them.

You can also tell it to periodically summarize the "lessons learned" from the recent session(s)

At some point they’ll introduce “deletion” tokens that cost ten times the regular token price. ;)

Then local models shouldn't suffer from the same problems, but they do. They just aren't trained in the direction of "less code == better long-term maintainability" I'd say, rather than some grand "increased-token-usage" conspiracy.

You can certainly steer them a bit to reduce the issue parent talks about, but they still go into that direction whenever they can, adding stuff on top of stuff, piling hacks/shim on top of other hacks/shims, just like many human developers :)

Training data is the masses of code from everyone.

Restrict that data to just the best of the best, the tersest of the tersest, and we’d see better output. I don’t think people are sharing that kinda stuff (Jane Street’s gems stay locked up), and even if they did my presumption is that it’d be too narrow and demanding for general audiences.

Big hopes for the long future, damned to some degree of mediocrity in the near term mass product.