تغريدة مثبتة
dnap
6.6K posts
dnap
@dnapway
definitely financial advice. buildin @counterpartytv | prev @alearesearch account run by parents
انضم Ekim 2021
6.1K يتبع2K المتابعون
Jcal warns founders that OpenAI will "slit your throat" just like Zuckerberg and Bill Gates did
"Nothing personal against Sam, he's a very aggressive dealmaker. He wants to get access to YC startups, because he knows, having run Y Combinator, that if he can get their innovations, he can incorporate them into the platform."
"There is no free pizza. There's no free beer. When somebody like Sam Altman comes to you and says, "Here's some free tokens," your alarm should go up."
"Zuckerberg did the same thing. He said, "Hey, I'm going to give people a bunch of access, going to give them money. Come to the Facebook platform." Nobody who went to bed with Microsoft in the 80s, Facebook in the 2000s, or Sam Altman now in the 2020s did not wake up with their throats slit."
"This is a message to founders: if you partner with any of these people, they will slit your throat and take your business wholesale. There is nothing to discuss here. Don't trust them. Use your own models."
English
David Sacks says OpenAI & Anthropic are becoming a $100 billion a year duopoly and the government is helping them
"Anthropic is around ~$60 billion ARR, OpenAI is at ~$40 billion of ARR. So we already have an emerging duopoly situation."
"We have Anthropic pushing for a regulatory capture agenda where Dario explicitly says that these other models are not safe. You got the government now potentially leaning not to bust up the duopoly but maybe to enforce it."
"I think really the whole ecosystem, the chip companies, developers, applications, enterprises, everybody has an incentive for a competitive layer at the model layer."
"My view is, look, if you earn a monopoly or duopoly in the United States, we don't ban monopolies. We ban anti competitive tactics. But if you lawfully achieve a monopoly through amazing performance, we don't nationalize you or make you illegal, and I think that's fine."
"However, the government, in my view, should do nothing to make monopoly or duopoly more likely. They should make it harder for these companies to engage in monopoly tactics and they should do everything they can to keep the model layer competitive."
"Competition is what brings out the best and it's good for the ecosystem, and it ensures our civil liberties and consumer choice."
English
David Friedberg predicts AOC will be President and says red states might leave the U.S. if she wins
"I do predict AOC will be president. I would say AOC would be my front runner based on the extraordinary cost of living and wealth disparity. Those two things are going to continue to drive the socialist movement over the next 24 months."
"And if AOC comes in and they bail out California and they federalize California's liabilities, you're going to see parts of this union, the red states... say, why should we be part of this union anymore?"
"We don't want to pay for all of these liabilities that these blue states have accrued and that we are now being asked to bail out. And that is where I think you face a crisis of the union in the years ahead."
English
David Sacks accuses Anthropic of ripping off its most successful partners including Cursor and Figma
"Anthropic blindsided its then business partner with the launch of Claude Design. This was a new vertical app that Anthropic launched to compete in the design category and Figma's founder said that Anthropic had not been completely honest with them."
"Anthropic's chief product officer had actually even served on Figma's board and didn't resign until 3 days before the launch of Claude Design. $FIG stock has fallen something like 50% this year while Anthropic's valuation has surged."
"Anthropic has also launched Claude Science, Claude Security, Claude Legal, Claude Financial, and of course Claude Code. And every single one of these vertical apps expanded into categories that was previously served by companies building on top of Anthropic's own models."
"When Anthropic's revenue explosion began, it was with the launch of Claude Code. They saw that Cursor was doing extremely well. Cursor was one of their biggest customers. They created the coding assistant category first and Anthropic said, why don't we vertically integrate? They're watching where the value is being created on top of their models, then they're moving in directly."
"Back to Alex Karp's point: if you're an enterprise customer or a developer, why in the world would you ever want to share any proprietary data with them? You are mortgaging your future. You are sealing your fate. You are going to lead to disaster for your company."
"One other point on Dario, at the same time that they pursue this business strategy, he's been arguing that open-source models are dangerous and need to be restricted. Well, dangerous to whom? Not to enterprises that want to retain control over their data."
English
David Sacks explains why he doesn’t support import bans on Chinese open source models
"Once a model is open sourced, it stops being Chinese in a way. Because you can fork it, create your own version, run it in an American data center on your own hardware. There's no packets going back to China. In some sense, they've made a contribution to the open source community. And then people can take it from there."
"The bottom line is that when an American company takes an open source model and converts it and runs it itself, it is now theirs."
Jason: “But that builds consensus around that model and makes that model stronger by having more people participating in it, which was the argument for allowing people to get on the hardware stack."
"If you were to do something like ban open source in the United States, you'll put the United States on an island. The rest of the world's not going to stop using these models just because we do. The rest of the world wants to use open models because they're cheaper, they're more customizable and they offer more control."
"I hope America wins the AI race in both open and closed models. I don't really want anyone being forced to use models they don't want. But look, if American open models are better than Chinese open models, they will win and people will want to adopt them. So if it's true that our models are getting better and going to surpass the Chinese ones, leave that to the market to decide."
English
dnap أُعيد تغريده
The big (possibly wrong) argument against this is that China is still behind in tons of fields despite, frankly, having just obscenely more smart people in them, to the point you can think of it as ≈2 years of a gap in AGI. How many IQ-point-years do you think went into ASML's EUV? Likely LESS than what they're throwing at research every year now. And yet. Domain knowledge is deep, expensive and slow to acquire. What "iterated chip designs"? You think Jensen will hand his moat over to Anthropic and pay for Claude tokens on the way?
Rationalists routinely assume the supreme power of first-principles thinking, Yud made a lot of noise about how AlphaZero rendered human Go expertise obsolete. Between learned human heuristics dulled with lossy compression into explicit transferable knowledge for accelerating generational gain, and an end to end learned heuristic that scales with available compute, it's no wonder the latter wins. But there's a difference between naturally self-contained logical domains that humans tile over with heuristics because that's all we meat-brains can do, and inherently deep and wide domains the dynamics of which are very far removed from their underlying generative process; and we don't know exactly where the boundary lies for any particular field. We can make an educated guess, however. I'd say that I wouldn't be surprised if Gemini Flash tier model that ingests Google's TPU development data and software will do better at "iterated chip design" than Claude Fable despite the latter's crushing intellect and more profound understanding of electrical engineering as publicly known. And GLM 5.2 level Nemotron customized by Nvidia will likely do better still.
This is not an academic debate; this is a question of the extent to which incumbents will allow frontier labs to convert their current profits into a lasting vice grip on the economy and eventual elimination of said incumbents, to improve their own reports for the next few quarters. If they have any business sense, they'll aspire to keep this extent limited.
Tenobrus@tenobrus
put simply, i think this claim is incredibly false, and this is what drives a lot of my understanding and assumptions around how all this will play out. i think viewing models as slowly replacing individual tasks and functions and "locking in" once they achieve sufficient capabilities there is deeply myopic. we will not have "the prior economy except with models doing the work". in fact what will happen is the same thing that always happens. new capabilities will lead to *new categories* of work, done by models not humans, and create huge swaths of value that was previously untouchable and incomprehensible. when you can pay for frontier++ intelligence to loop and automatically discover 3 new world-changing drugs per month, people will pay for this. in fact they will saturate spend on this, because the value of these opportunities is so so high. when you can pay for frontier++ intelligence to fanned-out run entire companies as mini experiments, you will do such, because it gives massive competitive advantage and scale in every possible niche. or maybe *you* won't, but others will, and they'll be the ones who remain economically relevant while you're having GLM 5.2 rewrite your emails and update your SaaS landing page. when frontier++ models are capable of iterating on chip design and distributed software architectures we currently view as only possible with decades of effort, countless corporations will pay the costs, because they'll generate economic returns at scales orders of magnitudes above what models are doing now. the intelligence waterline keeps marching up. so you solved health insurance claims review with a fine-tuned Qwen that achieves 100% perfect accuracy at optimal cost without frontier models? awesome, yeah honestly that will make you a bunch of money for a while especially given regulations are gonna be slow to change. but *relative to what will happen elsewhere*, your slice of the pie will shrink to irrelevance, because other newer areas will be so so so much more incredibly valuable.
English
@dnapway Why is this underwhelming?
Compare to tempo and unichan, this looks great!
English
$META is an easy fade here:
-both Zuck + Alex Wang giga backtracked on the idea that they're dropping their ai plans anytime soon
-now Meta is discussing a new gen training / inference chip with Samsung
-the initial bloomberg piece itself said Meta's demand would accelerate, not decline at all
-Meta's neocloud contracts don't permit them to resell rented compute, only their own chips or dedicated physical gpus
the market rewarded meta on rumors of scaling down capex and deprioritizing AI, which is explictly not happening regardless of if their custom chip and new model pan out. the biggest winners again here seem to be the guys absorbing all the cash that the labs / hyperscalers throw around
English
"The scale of China's oil demand collapse has been so dramatic that Chinese policymakers are reportedly examining whether this historic slump reflects a temporary response to elevated global prices or a more structural shift in consumption patterns." - JPM
English
it’s unprecedented for the US government to openly take stakes in private businesses outside of bankruptcy / bailout situations. Trump has already flipped this standard on its head and taken stakes in several semiconductor / rare earth companies.
The next target in the AI supply chain is the labs themselves. Trump has openly bull posted Intel, Micron and OpenAI could be the admins selected national AI champion.
The next question is if / how the ~$50B stake would benefit the public. At least OpenAI’s own strategy head thinks the right path is splitting up the stake across households
Counterparty@counterpartytv
If the government takes a stake in OpenAI, this sets a precedent for a new form of lobbying. The most powerful companies in the country can grant the government a stake in exchange for regulatory protection and favors. “This is the new lobbying. Just give Trump 5% of your company and you can do whatever the f*ck you want. It’s like a KOL deal in Crypto. Give Trump 5% and we’ll make sure your stock goes up” "Polymarket shows a 64% chance that the U.S. takes a stake in OpenAI. It feels likely man"
English
dnap أُعيد تغريده
our stream today in 48 minutes ft. @MarketBubble
0:30 I could really hoop
3:37 guarding Cam Thomas in AAU
11:46 the winner effect & poker resurgence
24:30 Ed Zitron's AI bear case
28:58 OpenAI gives Trump 5%
37:24 MARKET BUBBLE: converting gamblers into traders
English