If - and this is a big if - Anthropic becomes and stays the industry-leader in LLMs AND if - and this is the second big if - the LLM/AI industry as a whole grows way faster than the rest of the economy - then Anthropic's stock appreciation will likely well-outpace the LLM/AI sector and the market as a whole.

That's the "big reward." The odds of that happening with Anthropic or any other particular AI/LLM company, or any AI/LLM company at all for that matter? Not big enough for me to want to play.

It's high-risk, high-reward, much like dot-coms of the 1990s.

There's also the "known unknowns" of regulatory risks both on the "what will AI be allowed to do" front and the regulations on power-hungry AI data centers themselves. We know these are categories of risks, but we don't have a good handle on how likely any given outcome will be 5 years from now. What are the odds that in 2031 America will be like "you want a data center here? Oh sure, no problem" vs. "you want a data center here? Not In My Backyard!" Once the regulatory environments stabilize it will be much easier to price this into "how much am I willing to pay for a given AI company's stock."

Right now, betting on an AI company's success 5 years down the road feels too much like betting on next year's World Series when we don't even know what the MLB Players Union contract will look like, or if there will even be a season next year.

You or the person you are replying to may not need a human editor, but here are people whose grammar or spelling is so bad they could really benefit from an editor, human or otherwise.

There are also people whose first language is not English, or who are from a part of the world where English is spoken or written in a different style or dialect than Slashdot and they want their posts to not stick out like a sore thumb.

... my posts on Slashdot.

The work these shadowy agencies and departments do has been going on for decades.

Even without modern tech, shadowy people doing their work in back rooms of government agencies or in royal palaces are nothing new.

If you get credibly accused of.... So don't get credibly accused of....

That's the reality.

Now, if writing in a style that is "bot like" constitutes "f'ing up" then I'll concede your point. But someday soon, bots will be able to write in ways that, in a pre-LLM era, we would call "excellent writing." Even absent LLMs, computers already out-do humans at some intellectual tasks, like playing chess.

of Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger B. Chaffee.

Tests like these shouldn't be a "gotcha." They should be fair.

* Had employees already been through some basic anti-phishing training?
* Did the test include something that someone who paid attention during the training course would be reasonably expected to spot?

There is one other use for tests like these: To survey the population of employees: What % of employees clicked on the link, and what do we need to do organizationally (not "just for those who failed") to lower this number to something we can live with?

But it shouldn't be a "gotcha."

They can turn Ukraine into glass. "At all costs" means they will start and lose World War III because most of their nukes were spent turning every hectare of Ukraine into uninhabitable wasteland. But for the few minutes that Putin lives before the incoming missile vaporizes him, he can laugh maniacally and say "I beat Ukraine! Ukraine is no more!"

--
For the gallows-humor impaired, this is NOT a serious suggestion. There are no winners in a nuclear war. If he's even thinking about ordering a nuclear strike on Ukraine, even one bomb, hopefully one of his aides will be brave enough to make sure such an order is never followed.

Back in the 20th century some power companies would put your hot water heater on a "controllable" meter that could be turned off during periods of high demand. The rate on that meter was lower than the rate for the rest of the house.

Industrial customers who are willing to be "turned off" can also get cheaper rates from many utility companies.

The work this agency is or will be doing has probably been done for decades. This may just be a re-organization to bring people together under one agency.

... that wetware has vulnerabilities too?

Or to put it another way: "Oops, I didn't mean to do that, sorry."

The use case I envisioned is experts who COULD do the work by hand use AI as a tool to be more efficient. This assumes they are expert-enough that will recognize if their AI of choice is giving a false-positive rate that makes their work harder, not easier. It also assumes that since they are being paid for their time (but perhaps only a pittance or not at all if they are students), they will be paid by their employers or funders as much for reviewing the AI's output as they are for the other parts of their research.

... the usual caveats apply: An expert human, or team of humans, needs to look at what the AI is suggesting, understand what it is suggesting, test it with the same or more rigor they would give to the same suggestion if a human had come up with it, and not "sign off" on it until they are satisfied that it is what they say it is.

It's the humans who are putting their professional reputation and, in some cases, their professional licenses on the line if they get it wrong. The AI is incapable of caring if it's correct or not.

You are young. I remember the older days when you had to set up an external modem to connect to a university mainframe that MIGHT have internet. With no pictures.

No ftp or telnet from your actual home computer. If you wanted to download files, kermit, xmodem, and the mainframe's equivalent of 'cat' were your friend.