Well at least we being ruled by idiots is consistent across both public and private sectors.

Sure, and basically anyone who has fab time to dedicate to ram now. And if there wasn't a fab shortage, nobody would be able to afford to light their homes anymore.

The IPO push is tied to their profit forecasts, and they expect to be profitable in Q2. They're revenue is growing rapidly and it's likely true they'll actually turn their first profit, so don't bet against it.

Sure. That could happen again. And again. It's even likely with these LLM operators. A few years from now the necessary hardware be lower cost and lower power. The models they've built will be cloned and surpassed by multiple competitors.

But in the immediate future investors will fill Anthropic's pockets. One benefit in all this is that there will be more scrutiny of the spending, which will create friction in the both the Buy All The Silicon and Datacenters Everywhere departments: the investors of both Anthropic and OpenAI will want to milk the value of tokens while spending as little as possible and avoiding risk.

Nobody in the AI business except Nvidia is profitable, and probably never will be. https://isaiprofitable.com/

This is what happens when you don't consider all the edge cases.

The edge cases break the law.

"Who says only AI is using agents? You're using a web user-agent right now. You probably already used a mail-user-agent, which delivered a mail using a mail-transfer-agent to a mail-delivery-agent. Don't be too impressed when someone uses a technical word that some people may associate with secret agents or whatever."
No one is, and I am not impressed by the use of the term "agent". You seemed to have taken the exact wrong message from my post. "Agent" means nothing, but it is being used here to suggest that there is a new problem to solve.

"And they now just can lookup what's available on a site."
If that's valuable, why wasn't it done already? What is it about "AI agents" that now justifies this?

"That doesn't look too different from other SRV records."
So? Again, why do this now? What is it about AI agents, particularly since agents aren't special, as you say?

And how does the AARP, or NRA, or anyone end up endorsing a candidate? They get a nice bite out of the campaign budget, and come to the realization that candidate x is indeed the best choice. Money spent, votes gained.

If voters decided elections, Sanders would have been president.

But you are missing my point. Who wins does not even matter. Every candidate who will be allowed to get anywhere works for the same donors, and will be delivering essentially the same policy. Your choices are candidates x, y, and z, all with the same policy, differing only in spiel, and possibly, in the pecking order of their donors.

The difference in your candidate choices:

How much do you support the genocide? A) A lot B) Very much indeed

Who should be go to war against? A) Russia B) China C) Iran

How big of a tax cut do you want for rich people? A) $4T B) $5T

Jobs? A) See previous

Actual health care? A) No B) Fuck no!

Social security, education, salaries, vacations? A) What are you, communist?

Who would you like us to pretend we care about? A) White people B) Minorities

Yeah, good luck with that.

Party primaries are in the $1B range now. This money comes from the same donors, not the voters, not the party, and in exactly the same way as presidentials. Sell the voters and the country out to the donors, get financing, create messaging, advertise, get votes. The same goes for all elections big or small. It's turtles all the way down.

Principles, yeah there you are just repeating what I said.

Nope, voters are secondary. Before you ever get to vote, the candidates on the ballot have been voted for with their wallets by campaign contributors, who do not contribute if there is no clear ROI for them. No contributors means no advertising means no votes. So the primary concern of any politician is to make and keep promises to the donors, and only then to figure out how to woo the voters.

Now the thing is, the interests of the donors and of the voters are often in conflict, so you usually can not keep both of the promises you made. If you break your promises to the donors, your career will be over, you will never have a campaign budget again. If however you break your promises to the voters, well as we have seen again and again, they will vote for you anyway. The more work you do for the donors, the bigger your pay. However little work you do for the voters, you can still win them over again with campaign ads.

The donor work is easy, all you have to do is pass the laws that were written by and handed to you by the donors. But even if someone wanted to do something for the voters, the thing is, voter problems are complicated, and there's pretty much no one with a chance of getting elected who has any idea what to do about any of them. You only have to listen to the average critter talk about things, there's zero understanding of how the world works, zero understanding of the problems the voters face, and zero original thought about anything, all you hear is the same old party approved mass media soundbites that you have heard for decades, the same you will probably recite as answers to the same questions yourself if you don't pay attention. So who would want to get their hands dirty with any of that? Better to just ignore the voter problems, and maintain them so they can be used to get them to vote for you next time too.

In any case, where democracy is these days, the same contributors finance almost everyone and anyone across the party lines. They do not care who wins, they know that after the financing, whoever gets to the office will be working for them, not for the voters. Trump donors are the same as Biden donors are the same as Hillary donors are the same as Obama donors are the same as GWB donors and so on. Whoever wins, the donors laugh all the way to the bank.

But when there arrives a politician who looks like he will actually work for the voters and change things, the whole system will rise up against them. In the UK there was Corbyn, who got smeared with constant baseless antisemitism accusations until everyone believed them. In the US there was Sanders who got ignored by the media while polling way ahead of Hillary, and then was betrayed by his own party in favour of her, and again, in favour of Joe.

Sometimes we also have weird flashes like AOC or Mamdani, who maybe did start out with principles, but once they got established, ended up being exactly the same spineless slime as everyone else.

For tl;dr take a look at this study from Cambridge https://doi.org/10.1017/S15375... voter preference has no correlation with policy outcomes in the US. But money does.

In Soviet America, the industry and market winners pick the government!

There is a mention of "agent sprawl", but other than a claim of "rapidly multiplying" what is special about this?

First, it should be understood that there is nothing special about an "agent", it's just a term used to refer to an AI application that is autonomous. Well, all sorts of software are similarly autonomous, it's only the use of AI that makes them "agents".

Funny, though, that there has never been a need to extend DNS to support autonomous applications deployed to the internet, yet now with AI we need it? And to be clear, an AI "agent" doesn't say what it does, only that it is autonomous and uses AI. And why do these agents need to identify one another? So they can more easily collude? So they can avoid breaking one another as they destroy conventional software services? So they know what software to steal from while avoiding AI mad cow disease?

We will find out that this is yet another move by AI billionaires to burden shared infrastructure to their benefit. If it's your cloud service then it's your problem, but if it's THEIR cloud service then it's your problem.

The goal is for future "programmers" to not even know how to define structure and flow.

Half of all programming is embedded, resource constrained and fixed function. The ability to even describe what needs to be done is the biggest challenge. AI coding assistants want you to ignore that programming even exists, after all gluing together other people's work is all programming is now, and that's a job AI "can do" (poorly).

it's worth at least as much as your opinion

People are using this particular feature. I don't really understand why, but reports are they do like it.

Apparently even Debian is supporting it (despite the summary): https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/a...