Author is assuming SpaceX is going to buy Cursor for $60B and I'm not sure why. Is there some reason?
To me it seems that SpaceX probably does not intend to buy, and is paying $10 billion for access to Cursor's data and talent, more importantly, the ability to add some sparkle to their IPO.
In my book, you are a hero if you sacrifice your own well-being for the utilitarian good of the public.
Many people here would call Putin's assassin a hero, the important distinguishing factor is whether it's a clear societal good or bad. If it's unclear then it's assumed bad.
I am not disagreeing with you here. But platitudes do nothing to convince people. You need to actually explain why the world is a better place with X politician in it, because it does actually matter.
Violence isn't going to give you the quick answer you think it will.
Once you start shooting, everyone starts shooting. Bystanders get hit. Companies start defending their businesses with private armies. The economy collapses. We all lose.
Countries high in political violence are the worst places in the world to live.
Like Anthropic? Due to Altman being a lying psychopath, most of the talent left OpenAI, which is now fighting for its life -- but now they can't claim to have moral high ground or the best researchers anymore; profitability's the only way out remaining to them.
Who knows? It could have always ended up this way anyway. But Altman had a pretty big role in summoning his own competition.
Is that an actual quote from simonw? He seems an unbiased observer and reporter of progress, I'd be sad to see him cheering this stuff on so callously.
Well, people who are not above a threshold of experience yet are not in a position to self-assess and course-correct if their long term learning is being affected. And even less so if there is pressure to be hyper-productive with the help of AI.
Speculating here but I think even seniors who rely on AI all the time and enjoy the enhanced output are going to end up with impostor syndrome over the things they suspect they can no longer do without AI, and FOMO about all the projects they haven't yet attempted with AI despite working as hard as they can.
It’s particularly interesting that Anthropic came out yesterday and basically said, yeah, this stuff cannot be held right.
One can argue, convincingly perhaps, that Anthropic isn’t right and/or is marketing, but what they’re saying could be complete BS but the fact that there is doubt suggests that most people believe that no one can hold it right exists.
I’m quite pro AI, but given the radical asymmetry between the upside vs the downsides (the upside is at best maximum bliss for all existing humans, which has a finite limit, while the downside is the end of humanity which is essentially infinitely bad), our march forward in this area needs to be at least slightly more responsible than what we are doing now.
I agree with you overall and would even concede the trend, but everyone I know who was born into money is not a good person. (Of course, Trump was too.) They tend to treat people as fungible resources that output work.
It's tempting to look at trends and assume there must be a rule behind them, but it's also intellectually lazy. Please do the hard work of justifying your stance like GGP did.
it is a simple stance - if you have a product that is used by hundreds of millions of people ad monetization strategy will be found cause there are people a lot smarter than you and me that will get it done. here’s intellectual challenge - find a business with comparable number of users to openai which is not swimming in ad revenue - one will do
A counterpoint is that there are many products with significant usage that fail or never attempt advertising monetization. They just increase the cost of the product.
I thought we were talking about search or social media companies failing to capitalize on advertising which I haven't seen. OpenAI is much closer to Google than it is to Office.
I could see that argument, but the economics of the two are so different. I just don't see how using an LLM can be sustainable for search, but could see it as an enterprise model.
What do you mean not sustainable for search? OpenAI is eating Google's lunch forcing them to put in LLMs on Google. I personally don't use traditional search anymore, it's all through LLMs. Meanwhile everyone hates Microsoft Office LLMs.
Yeah, and Jakub didn't seem to have much background in AI research. I'm sure he's a great coder and did a PhD on fast algorithms but it's a different area to pushing forward AI really.
Google has already surpassed them both in all areas except coding. People on HN only look at benchmarks, but Gemini's multimodal understanding, things like identifying what a plant is, normal user use cases (other than chatting), integration with other tools, is much better.
It's believable that Meta, ByteDance, etc. can catch up too. It is not certain that scaling will meaningfully increase performance indefinitely, and if it stops soon, they surely will. Furthermore, other market conditions (US political instability) can enable even more labs, like Mistral, to serve as compelling alternatives.
Uber, TSMC, etc. have strong moats in the form of physical goods and factories. LLMs have nothing even remotely comparable. The main moat is in knowledge, which is easy to transfer between labs. Do you think all the money that goes into training a model goes into the actual final training run? No, it is mostly experiments and failed ideas, which do not have to be repeated by future labs and offshoots.
To me it seems that SpaceX probably does not intend to buy, and is paying $10 billion for access to Cursor's data and talent, more importantly, the ability to add some sparkle to their IPO.
reply