Investors are chasing a company that achieves some kind of AI singularity. Let's set aside the fact that there's no reason to believe there is anything but diminishing marginal returns by making marginal refinements to current frontier models. Let's imagine someone hits the jackpot and gets, not even AGI, but a system that's as far ahead of today's frontier model are ahead of 2020's GPT 2.0 in performance.

Globally AI revenues are 150 billion, against a cumulative burn rate of 450 billion. A model that is a generation ahead of others would almost certainly capture the lion's share of that revenue.

If AGI magically appears as a Sam Altman has promised investors it will, a hundred million is way too low. Add, maybe, another zero to the revenues.

Conservatively, a safer assumption is that frontier models will get marginally better based on refinements in training and reinforcement and the other bits and bobs that go into these systems. The nobody is winning the lion's share of anything, at least overnight. But you have to define "safe". By "safe" I mean unlikely to lose money. But some investors are clearly defining "safe" as "having the greatest chance of owning a piece of the biggest thing ever."

I'm not following this super-closely, but if Anthropic is pursuing adding multi-step model based reasoning to their system, that could be the basis of a generational leap in capability. But if that is an approach that looks like it has a chance of working, then their competitors are no doubt pursuing the same thing. In that case you'd expect the revenue pie to grow as the scope of model utilty increases, but that growth to be split among several competitors. This could credibly result in a revenue stream for some of them that is as big as the entire industry's revenue stream today. But there's going to be hell to pay on the data center impacts end of things.

This is an indication of a systemic failure. And a human failure. Both.

But be thankful that you have the system that you have. In China, 99.97% of people arrested are convicted. The police use torture systematically to obtain confessions. Sometimes female suspects will be imprisoned with known rapists.

Be thankful that we're even having a discussion about systemic failure with the Flock database error.

You're inserting advocacy research (which is not reality seeking) into a case where the facts are already pretty clear.

About 20 are unarmed people.

About 8 of those unarmed people are actively attacking the police officer.

Of the remaining 12 -- some were escaping, some were attacking someone else, ..., and a proportion were genuinely innocent people.


This idea that "1/3" of people killed by strangers are killed by police is classic massaging the date, because almost every person who is killed or murdered is done so by someone they know.

The police are continually reforming. We need more reform. We also need a reality based discussion.

Data entry mistakes happen. What is worrying is that it wasn't corrected the first time she was pulled over. Also, the police should have issued an apology. It's the morally correct thing to do; however, I suspect they have legal advise specifically NOT to do this because of ambulance chasing lawyers. Nonetheless there is absolutely a systemic failure here that needs to be addressed.

A mistake was still made, in that the entry should have been removed from the database the first time.

PoliceViolenceReport -- an advocacy organization btw -- reports 2x fatal police incidents. So, since 2017, we have about 15 per year instead of 7. So you're way over your skiis. Did you read the "excellent data"?

And it isn't apples-to-apples. Because PoliceViolenceReport is measuring a different *thing*. We're no longer looking at just shootings, but other types of fatal incidents, such as the use of police vehicles.

The Washington Post reviewed shootings of unarmed individuals, and found 40% (!) were physically attacking the officer in question.

When it comes to HARMLESS people SHOT by policy, PoliceViolenceReport and the Washington Post agree.

That means that YOUR SOURCE agrees with the OP.

If there were really justice in this world

I get your point and I agree in principle.

$100M? Really?

Btw, if this were china, they have a 99.97% conviction rate. The police arrest someone. They are tortured until they confess. 3 in 1000 escape prison.

For all its flaws, be thankful that we live in a system that we have. A $100M lawsuit would not make it better, unless most of it went to pay defendants legal fees. We also need way more judges. Like 10x as many judges.

OK, which particular aspect of the LLM learning do you think doesn't exist in the human brain? Backprop exists (and the other training methods the brain uses has similar effects), embeddings more or less exists and seems to be very similar to the LLM embeddings (shown by brain activation in various areas linearly matching with embeddings) - see e.g. High-level visual representations in the human brain are aligned with large language models (Adrien Doerig et al, 2025), and speech/text generation by humans has similar error patterns as for LLMs.

They obviously don't learn in the EXACT same way, but there's also clearly a lot of bits that are the same, and I'm fairly sure nobody knows how much is similar yet, particularly not weighted by importance.
 

Well, yes. For many years, presidential candidates, both Democratic and Republican, referred to the United States as "the indispensible nation". And my reaction was always, "Doesn't that mean the US is a single point of failure for civilization?"

We are currently performing an experiment which addresses this question: can the US enjoy the benefits of soft power without the cost? That's the whole point of obeying *norms*. No individual force is going to punish you if you are treacherous, mercurial, foul-mouthed, disrespectful and generally unpredictable. Everyone will punish you.

I think an inevitable cost of this experiment will be that the world will decide that the US can't be a single point of failure for global democracy any longer. In many ways, that's something that will be good for us. But it's also going to cost us in painful ways. When the world decides to move away from the dollar as the international reserve currency, you will see both inflation and higher interest rates on everything from credit cards to mortgages, to business loans that will offset the export advantages. We will need *more* business investment to shift the economy to producing low value goods again, so the transition will be rocky.

It's a trade off: you get abundant free energy to run the server, with extreme constraints on cooling because your server is running in the most perfect Thermos bottle ever.

Others are taking the opposite tack: undersea data centers for abundant free cooling at the expense of having to get the power down to your servers.

If had to bet on which one is more practial, I'd go with undersea servers. Build them off the coast of Chile, run cables out from batery-backed solar plants in the Atacama desert.

I think it may be evidence that Amazon has a shitty corporate culture that squeezes every penny it can out its employees.

Corruption can happen anywhere, but it's more likely to happen in totalitarian cultures where people feel like the system is rigged anyway. That's why countries like Russia and China have corruption problems. But I suspect the same feelings of me vs. the system occur in a capitalist enterprise like Amazon where employees are governed by dystopian, rigid, computerized metrics.

The price may not have been a check. The government was telling them who the boss is. It is morally suspect to shake down business like this; however, maybe Dario really was a pain in the a**. It's hard to know what really happened here.

China is a famously closed ecosystem. Li Keqiang -- a CPP provincial secretary -- candidly said in 2007 that CCP numbers are "man-made and therefore unreliable". on. People interested in measuring China's economy use proxies, which has become an academic cottage industry. In 2020, China famously cut its population by 200 million (!!!) people.

Anyone who takes Chinese numbers at face value is foolish, because the CCP doesn't do that themselves.

Almost all GM cars are built in China. GM basically gave all their technology away for the privilege of doing this. My guess is that these new Chinese cars will be reliable.