Is Fable 5 just Opus 5 with some additional long-context management modifications for extended self-directed work? Or are they actually truly different models?
I suspect they make a big model first. In this case it's Fable. Then they run the shrinker steps to make Sonnet and Opus. Sonnet is smaller, takes less time to make, so it got released first. Opus needed few more weeks to cook.
With this iteration they had a delay because when the Mythos was ready they had some sort of "Oh shit" moment and spent half a year adding safety guards to it. Then slowly rolled it out, but got another delay due to a government block. So, maybe the work on making Opus and Sonnet only started after they got a green light from the administration.
Presumably, now that they learned how to do this safety-wrapping the next iteration of Mythos / Fable / Opus / Sonnet is going to show up faster.
There is word on the street that they allowed employees to work with a slightly stronger internal version of Mythos (5.1, if you will) that, in their parsing of the order, wasn’t restricted. If true, in practical terms, they ignored the order.
Iirc the ban only applied to non-Americans. While anthropic found collecting citizenship information on all customers too burdensome, it's a much smaller lift to collect such info for your own employees.
So I'm assuming at least a subset of employees could continue using the models during that time.
Although the ban was only for non-Americans, Anthropic said that they'd also restricted access to their own employees internally, because they had no other realistic way to apply the government's orders. I guess it's possible they were lying, but seems unlikely.
They just got a huge amount of customer price info over the past few days after they went token only for Fable. I suspect the conversion rate was extremely low, with consumers far less sticky than they might have hoped. In my case I was planning on swapping, probably to a Chinese model, when my sub expired this month, but the release of Opus 5 is probably enough to keep me paying rent until the next open model/closed model face-off in a couple of months.
Risk exposure of "internal closed source" vs "open source". No one (external) cares nor can inspect a companies pile of internal utilities and code. As long as the code works than there's no problems.
Everyone and their cat can look at open source projects, which can and will result in being called out publicly. This can also have legal ramifications on the project itself.
I have one of these. Got it a few weeks before the price increases. On the 14" version charging is limited to 96 watts, but the chip can pull north of that with adequate cooling, so the battery will literally drain while plugged in.
It isn't a problem for me, more amusing than anything else (I run in Low Power mode 90% of the time) but worth knowing for anyone thats thinking about pushing the hardware to its limit 24/7.
The answer is that once you move past a modest shipping op the people with actual visibility on that would be the warehouse that's fulfilling, also typically people who don't have the power to cancel orders themselves.
Ecomm orders want to drop to the distribution center as soon as possible, which means you can't wait until you have a whole bunch of them just so you can analyze which addresses are on multiple orders. You would either need to 1) detect this in the warehouse systems (I spent my career working on these, so I can say with high certainty that is almost definitely Not going to happen, especially if they go through a 3PL) OR 2) you have to cancel orders after they have already dropped to the warehouse (which means wasted labor in the best-case scenario).
None of that is worth the effort to a company who is fundamentally still getting paid the same for the product regardless of if the purchaser is a scalper or not.
Why would any people need to see the addresses at all? The solution being proposed is something that you'd automate with a series of heuristics.
And your point about the company making the same money for shipping to scalpers vs non scalpers seems like it would only apply to the shipping company, but if you view from the perspective of the product company, obviously they have an incentive to avoid scalpers because it negatively impacts the brand and the price spikes are money not captured by the product company and may even reduce further spending (eg if a buyer spaffed half their budget on an overpriced console, that's less for buying games which benefit the product company, eg Steam in this case)
You are vastly over-estimating the tech power the vast majority of businesses have dedicated to logistics. There's a large number of different systems involved with a enterprise logistics stack. Ecomm store provider, ERPs, middleware, warehouse systems, shipping systems, banking, etc. Which part of the pipeline are you going to hold up while you wait for enough orders to pool to build a meaningful heuristic?
The solution Valve came up with is quite brilliant.
It sounds like you are massively overthinking it. When you pre-order anything, you need to enter a shipping address. Why would you need to consider anything beyond that or require 'dedicated' logistics?
that's not to say I don't like Valve's solution - I agree, it is very nice
I don't think they're necessarily overestimating what they've dedicated to logistics, they're overestimating what they've dedicated to anti-scalping. If they cared to detect it, they could invest even just a token effort and make great strides. But why would they care?
I was trying to think about the why with Cursor, and the only thing that makes sense to me is they wanted experts in making harnesses so that they can pivot that expertise towards building harnesses intended for autonomous agents to use instead of humans. There's no world where a 60 billion IDE makes sense.
I think it's more that Space X's valuation is ridiculous, and they need acquisitions that are ridiculous to pretend that the emperor is still wearing clothes.
When cursor is selling for $60B, then grok has to really be worth several times that, right?
It's probably a bit of both. Space X is overvalued, and so is Cursor. It's easier for Space X to justify buying Cursor for $60B than it would be for other, because it's a rounding error compared to Space X's valuation.
I haven't tried Cursor, and I'm sure it's a perfectly good IDE, but given that JetBrains was valued at $7B in 2021 [1] $60B seems rather high.
The US has GDP of 32 trillion. In an economy of that size, you would expect a few companies for which 60B is not crazy money, although rounding error is really stretching it.
I don't know that I disagree, but this had to be in the works before the IPO right? Acquisitions don't typically materialize in a timeline of <1 week (or perhaps they do when someone walks in and offers 60B...)
I have completed 4 rows of firewood, onto my 5th! The stacking animation is very satisfying, I am sad I can't actually see the wood stacking anymore (because my wood pile has grown to large). It would be nice if it persisted across refreshes, and maybe provided a counter for how many rounds/cords of would you have split.
Capital, as a whole, barely thinks farther forward than the next fiscal quarter. If you are lucky, the absolute farthest out is end-of-career/lifetime for the current leadership suite. Why would capitalists be the saviors from climate change?
