Cy

"AI has made coding nearly free. And in turn, it's made verification nearly priceless."

@LahnHQ @ZachLahn Zach doesn't often talk about his Uncle Willy who ran a border checkpoint in East Germany.

.@ZachLahn: "Our campaign has been about four key issues: Keeping Iowa's kids in Iowa, saving family farms, making public education #1, and stopping the cancer crisis. We're here to tackle the long term systemic issues-- not a bumper sticker politics campaign."

@deliprao On the flip side, the whole "Anthropic vs open models" is turning out to be significantly positive. Early commercial Internet faced an AT&T/Baby Bell/ANS NAPS oligopoly plan vs Commercial Internet Exchange. Shitposting ANS senior engineer helped kill the closed Internet model.

@deliprao Coming from dot-com sector originally, I can relate. But Anthropic has a board and clients who don't embrace shitposting edgelords. They'll find it highly alarming Dario has chaos and no message control. Guarantee there are questions being raised in F500 boardrooms per Anthropic.

Amazing how a paycheck and equity can liberate a man from the burden of logic.

@deliprao I don't and would love to hear if this is tolerated practice in the sector. As a CISO in finance and aerospace sectors, those executive teams have zero tolerance for anything that damages corporate public reputation and investor relations.

@cythagoras I don’t think/know if you work in AI.

@LahnHQ @ZachLahn How clueless does Zach have to be to not know Trump and his own Republican Party killed this very program he claims to support. Or is the real sucker Lahn's naive supporters?

"This is something I'm committing to if I'm able to be governor: Sourcing 80% of our food served in public schools in the state of Iowa." - @ZachLahn

@richardartoul To be fair, EA has never been the same ever since they lost their thought leader Sam Bankman Fried.

this is what passes for intellectual rigour in the EA community: "if you really think X is good then why don't you turn Y into X also? ha! you don't really think X is good at all!"

@sharpshootin24 @KCCINews Because political parties don't determine state election law and we absolutely do not want them to try.

@KCCINews Lol why do they give a shit if it’s Iowa law? What are you gonna sue each other? Yeah that’ll be a great look.

Rob Sand to DNC on 2028 caucuses: ‘You can say what you want, we're going to follow Iowa law’ | Click on the image to read the full story kcci.com/article/rob-sa…

@stevehou @SpaceXAI @AnthropicAI Wouldn't be surprised to see @SpaceXAI and even Tesla's efforts signing on asap. Elon could use a friend or two about now.

It seems it's only a matter of time now before @SpaceXAI and @AnthropicAI will sign on too. Peer pressure ftw.

@r0ck3t23 Scott Galloway is the thinking man's Jim Cramer. Same effect.

Scott Galloway just explained why China doesn’t need to build better AI than America. It only needs to make American AI worthless. Galloway: “I think China is beginning to engage in what I’ll call AI dumping.” Not competing. Dumping. It’s the term economists use for flooding a foreign market with below-cost goods until the domestic industry collapses. Galloway: “They’re going to have a series of open-weight models. About a third of corporations now are supposedly using Chinese lightweight open-weight models that are cheaper.” Not better. Cheaper. A third of corporations. Already. China isn’t trying to out-innovate Silicon Valley. It’s trying to collapse the economics beneath it. Price warfare at the infrastructure layer. Galloway: “If I were Xi, I would just dump cheap AI into the US market.” This playbook is old. China ran it with steel. Ran it with solar. Ran it with semiconductors. Flood a market with a cheaper version until the domestic industry can’t sustain itself. AI is next. Galloway: “The moment large corporations start announcing they’re disengaging these multi-million dollar site licenses with Anthropic or OpenAI, they’re using these inexpensive Chinese models…” One CFO after another decides the Chinese model at a fraction of the cost is good enough. Not better. Good enough. “Good enough” at a lower price has killed more market leaders than any superior product ever has. Galloway: “…and the market realizes that there’s no way they can justify these incredible valuations, I think the US market crashes.” Not because the technology failed. Because the business model did. American AI companies are valued on the assumption that corporations will pay premium prices for premium models. China’s whole strategy is to make that assumption false. Galloway: “40% of the S&P now is directly or tangentially related to this giant bet America’s making on AI.” 40% of the S&P. Tied to one sector. Galloway: “The majority of GDP growth over the last two years has come from AI CapEx.” The majority of GDP growth. From one source. America didn’t diversify its future. It concentrated everything into a single bet, then left that bet undefended. Galloway: “If that slows down, we are immediately in a recession.” Immediately. Not gradually. Not over quarters. The distance between AI boom and American recession is one procurement decision. America built the most advanced AI on Earth and forgot to build an economy that survives someone selling it cheaper. The threat to American AI was never that China would build something smarter. It was that China would build something cheaper, and American corporations would choose the price. China’s real weapon isn’t Chinese technology. It’s American capitalism. The same rational self-interest that built the AI industry will dismantle it the moment a cheaper alternative appears. The market has no patriotism. Only price sensitivity. The technology race was never the real race. The real race was always whether America could turn its AI dominance into something that survives being undercut. America hasn’t even started running it. China already has.

@RoyalRooterSox @zacharyhorn Board members tend to get worked up about these things. Shows a CEO who doesn't have control over his organization. Zero comms discipline and focus.

@zacharyhorn It seems like every time Anthropic employees post lately, they bring bad PR. I don't get it.

An unforced comms error. There was nothing to be gained by posting this.

@zacharyhorn HR at most Fortune 500 be like "that's a security escort with a cardboard box."

@AngelicaOung Whole lotta open source folks ganged up on Novell's Ray Noorda when he tried to monopolize Linux open source via Canopy Group (The SCO Group, etc). Different factors but consistent aversion to a tech community's intellectual commons being fenced off by a single player.

It’s true what Liang Wenfeng said isn’t it? AI is not like other technologies. The more you try to keep the more the world will conspire to take it from you.

@RandolphCarterZ @BrianRoemmele I'd like to have a discussion with the Effective Altruist at Anthropic who rationally (sic) determined the universe would save 100 trillion future inhabitants by refusing to answer a high schooler's question about Rust and disassemblers in either Fable or Opus 5.

@BrianRoemmele Zero surprises detected

Anthropic employees go nuclear on the popularity of open source AI. It is getting really ugly as they realize that Anthropic is now isolated like a virus. It is end days to AI fear theater and they are mad.

@TheAhmadOsman Bonus: Claude insisted Opus 5 does not exist. I should have screen shotted that interaction.

@TheAhmadOsman Even Opus 5 is broken. Mentoring some Rust students in our maker lab this weekend, we asked Claude about the disassemblers for that specific language - instant model downgrade to Fable 4.8. A high schooler's question about programming and disassembly panics a frontier model.🫢

Anthropic wants the public to see one thing: the careful lab, the safety lab, the grown-up in the room trying to keep frontier AI from running off a cliff. However, the pattern around Anthropic does not look like caution by itself. It looks like a company wrapping a business model in moral language, then using that language to justify opaque model behavior, anti-competitive access rules, regulatory pressure, and a future where builders, startups, researchers, and Opensource communities stay downstream of a few blessed frontier labs. Imagine a compiler that emits worse binaries when it thinks you are building a competing compiler. Imagine a microscope that blurs certain samples because the manufacturer dislikes the research direction. Imagine a debugger that lies only when your codebase resembles a future rival. Anthropic can learn from the internet, copyrighted books, code, public knowledge, user feedback if permitted, synthetic data, and its own models. But if a developer uses Claude to bootstrap a competitive open assistant, Anthropic calls foul. The company argues that safety controls may be lost and that competing models undermine the investment required to build frontier systems. The fight is whether intelligence becomes something people can own, inspect, modify, run locally, fine-tune, study, route, and improve, or whether it becomes a subscription permission layer run by companies that can refuse, degrade, surveil, retain, revoke, reroute, or lobby away your access. Anthropic's moat is being a permission regime. On daily basis, competitors and acquisition targets discover that access can disappear. The company asks governments to bless safety frameworks, deployment gates, incident reporting, evaluation regimes, and even future pauses that incumbents are best positioned to survive. If a coding or research model secretly changes the quality, direction, or reliability of an answer because it classified the user as doing disallowed frontier work, the tool is no longer merely "safe." It is untrustworthy. If Anthropic wants to be treated like a public-interest safety institution, it cannot behave like a hypersensitive platform monopolist whenever a customer gets too close to building alternatives. Yes, companies protect their IP. But Anthropic is not selling a normal SaaS widget. It is selling cognition as infrastructure. Once cognition becomes infrastructure, anti-competitive access control stops being a normal vendor dispute and becomes a social bottleneck. Anthropic repeatedly converts safety, security, and responsible deployment into mechanisms of control over who may build and what could be built. We cannot trust them.

@martin_casado It's almost as if Anthropic is revealing significant leadership issues. You don't let employees attack industry leaders in socials. You don't sit on a crippled model (Fable) that can't process basic prompts without panic and downgrading due to trigger words, not threat context.

At least Microsoft had an effective monopoly when it decided to go against the entire industry on openness. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out ....

@Mononofu @JensenHuang I can't imagine how many of Anthropic's customer CEOs are looking at this twit attacking the CEOs of other industry leaders and wondering: who is in control of Anthropic?

I’m so excited that @JensenHuang is a believer in open source now, looking forward to the CUDA and GPU driver open source release!

@LahnHQ @ZachLahn Lofty wishes without structural plans and details = Bumper Sticker Issues Zach, we challenge you to give a detailed policy proposal on how you stop the cancer crisis in Iowa without being told "sit down and shut up" by your Republican corporate donor class.

@ysundfw_jerry @quxiaoyin They'd better pray Opus 4.8 can do the job. Fable and Opus 5 don't permit discussions involving dangerous concepts like "security" "standards" "biology" etc, lol.

@quxiaoyin Anthropic should delegate to Fable for tactics…

Anthropic has a winner model, but keeps using loser tactics like a crying wolf: - “Mythos is too scary.” - “Distillation is criminal.” - “Open weights are too dangerous.” You have the best talent & the strongest models. Why can you win with dignity? - Ship Fable 6—or the next frontier—faster. - Make Claude Code irresistible. - Stop holding enterprise customers hostage with their own data. - Stop quietly tightening consumer credit limits. - Stop downgrading people to Opus when they paid for Fable. Keep shipping models that are 10× better and we’ll gladly keep paying you more. Open-weight competitors won’t matter if your product is simply better. And if Dario is right that you’re closest to recursive self-improvement, why do you care the open weight losers who will fall behind forever? Winners win by being better—not by playing dirty to hold everyone else back.