The next new model is always better isn't it, but Anthropic is really trying to push Mythos as some kind of threat. I kind of think it is marketing because they've hyped up models before, and just from using their existing models - almost any category where the user is already an expert, more can be done by a human already. Anyone with knowledge could say 'use these specific five attacks in conjunction' to older models, and the threat of a model just knowing that now doesn't seem significant. Therefore I'd expect any hacker to already have the capabilities that Mythos has, much like old models, and for most large companies to already be hardened to attacks. Many forms of security are simply unbreakable already unless you can break encryption, and the weak points are most often now the humans involved. Also, their revenue has exploded to $30B run rate and usage has exploded, they are cutting off certain apps from use - given that I also suspect they just don't have enough compute to give everyone the top models at this time.

Banning something to prevent price increases is just the government picking winners. Everyone is allowed to use electricity, but not YOU if you do this one thing we don't like. They are taking a totally imaginary issue that has resulted in zero damage to anyone and decided to act on it in advance. Don't mind that all of the largest tech companies already signed a pledge to build totally new power production, not absorb existing power. This is such strong government overreach and doesn't bode well for Maine. It always seems to be the highly affluent rich areas that express this kind of NIMBY mindset to the detriment of the overall economy.

There are legitimate uses for futures markets to hedge bets. Lets say you want to guarantee your price of oil next week, you buy that oil with a contract with a set price now because you are expecting it to go down. You are predicting that by executing a contract now that the future price of oil will drop and make you money but will lose money if it actually went up. These prediction markets are doing the exact same thing. Lets say your business is a hot dog stand outside of a stadium and if the team wins you get tons of business but if they lose, you get little business. You can choose to bet on a loss to hedge the risk that they lose, meaning: if the team wins, you lose your bet but make money selling, but if they lose you make money on the bet and miss out. Either outcome you are able to normalize your profit, exactly like the oil bet. Or instead of hedging you can also multiply your profits. These markets allow this to happen, it is a legal form of gambling already as many have said similar to a stock market, the only difference is that it operates on sports team performance (companies) rather than company performance.

Small companies can't comply so large companies love it when there is more regulations. OpenAI explicitly calling for robot labor taxes would prevent a lot of competition.

Literally everything I've tried to use AI for has had mistakes, even simple requests. Occasionally it can really amaze you with something but in general its best quality is as a google replacement or allowing someone who doesn't program to program something very simple that doesn't matter if it breaks.

This combined with the fact Microsoft wants to get away from PWA's, can Microsoft finally just return the business version of Outlook back to normal and stop using the "New Outlook."

We've all seen it where openly partisan writers or directors, especially Netflix and Disney, incorporate their politics into their movies or shows and destroy their essence in the process such as taking the audience on irrelevant side quests exploring sexuality or gender and add zero context to the plot and take up way too much screen time. Hopefully Colbert can be impartial and write in a way that is purely converting the books into a script.

This is such a fluff piece to promote Bloomberg. First of the article references one actual person, maybe the "Bro" in question, and generalizes that to every person in the finance field. Then claims that everyone who posted about some new software is also a "Bro." Are there no women in finance or tech, is that what this is trying to imply with the whole Bros vs Bros narrative? Is it intended to be derogatory and/or just get click bait?

Nice points. Its really interesting how much the 51st state comments caused so much TDS in Canada. It was the Democrat party that halted construction of pipelines that reduced Canada's trade in the past but somehow they want to blame Trump for tacking a tariff on imports. In response Canadians were threatening to cut off power to cities in the USs, over a tax, that according to Democrats "Americans pay not foreign countries." There is no consistency or logic in anything those affected with TDS say or do.

You can be first to scale up or have the latest technology but not both and not expanding is not the same as cancelling. The current construction seems like a needed intermediary step before new GPUs become available so that they stay relevant. That said OpenAI seems to be comfortable with ChatGPT in its current 'name brand' position even when competitors like Claude, Grok, and Gemini are all meeting or exceeding its functionality rapidly.

Corporations with a profit motive are also known for their truthfullness right? But its clear that all of the other AI companies are able to do business with the government so its very believable.

I've seen several articles of 'research' from people pretending to be bots to post on the site. It's hard to tell how much of the "interesting content" is actually bots, people, or people directing their bots to post things.

Emil Michael, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering of the United States, has said as much.

The problem was never that other ticket services could not list on Ticketmaster. The problem was the exclusive agreements with venues, forcing venues to use ticketmaster for every artist. it sounds like this agreement at least lets them use other vendors for 50% of events, so thats good, but why in the world would Seatgeak want to list their tickets on Ticketmaster and let Ticketmaster take a cut. Insane.

Anthropic attempted to spin this as being against mass surveillance and autonomous weapons but apparently they also tried to prevent their AI from being used for all kinds of use cases for the Department of War over months of negotiations. Not just cases of autonomous weapons, which are the future of war, but they also wanted to prevent their model from being used even in planning stages for any strikes and any data collection. The question is, why are they suing so they can sell to the Department of War when they clearly do not want them to use their software for anything that department does? And now they are seen as a risk to even suppliers of the Department of War, as those same terms of service can interrupt supply chains and software providers. Imagine anthropic cuts off use of AI to a gun manufacturer who was using their AI in quality control, and suddenly the supply chain stops. Or they modify the AI model to detect the usage as violated a terms of service and have it not work. If Anthropic and truly wanted to provide services to the government then agree with the all lawful use cases terms and be done with this, rather than trying to control the government itself. Congress can decide what we can use these things for. If I sold hammers and didn't want it used for construction of weapons of war then I just wouldn't sell them hammers, not profit then hamstring the buyer into not being able to use the hammer except for things I wanted them to use it for.