If they're trying to slow down AI progress why did they release a new model? What's the rush?

The tension between slowing down the overall race, while not losing 1st place.

Also note that this release isn't a model capability improvement, but a cost and efficiency (and style) improvement.

So they care more about being 1st place than slowing down the race.

They care about both, and those goals are intertwined. Mirroring the core of alignment problem itself, the only way to have influence on the pace of the race is to be one of the winning players - if they fall off to the back, they cannot do anything about it anymore.

> the only way to have influence on the pace of the race is to be one of the winning players

Yeah I don't buy that, every additional player is just adding fuel to the fire.

Would the cold war be "safer" if it were US, Russia and a 3rd player? Of course not, it would just make it harder to coordinate any safety measures.

They're slowing down token usage, not the path to regulatory capture.

Slowing down only makes any sense if you can coordinate a slow-down for everyone.

That's just false.

Less companies involved means less pressure to go fast.

Ah yes, they should just cease to exist, giving OpenAI - the champions of AI safety - control over the future of humanity. Fantastic suggestion!

Dario found himself in the prisoner's dilemma.

Which is one of those fun things that didn’t actually exist back when we took it for granted that our fellow person was operating under some kind of moral or ethical framework, which pretty much everyone was until the economists told us that wasn’t rational, because it turns out it’s an evolutionary advantage to operate under an ethical or moral framework because it allows the kind of coordination which facilitates better collective outcomes, which everyone knew until the economists came along to tell us we were wrong and in fact it was rational not to do so and suddenly we had the prisoner’s dilemma.

On the other hand, there's research suggesting that the most optimal behavior for the best outcomes (based on the famously dependable economist style of analysis in a vacuum) is to practice the moral/ethical framework but to also engage in tit for tat - ie, assume everyone means well but respond proportionally when they don't.

If you hit wall, hit it hard.

The hype train must keep chuggin or it all collapses.

Trump got mad and investors sued.

If it works but the design is terrible - is that still success?

In the short term yes. Long term, no. But I guess you can say the same thing about a team of engineers taking shortcuts

Horses work, Telegraph works, Gas lamps work, etc.

this is a good question. what would make you reject an otherwise working PR on design grounds?

But I assume students already aren't allowed to just submit genAI output and afaik most classes don't involve computer use, so what's really the change?

Which is why they are rushing to an IPO.

Did iran win? Their economy is on the brink of collapse with no relief in sight, and countries are investing in infrastructure to bypass the strait.

And sure oil prices have gone up, but not doomsday scenario prices.

A bit of a pyrrhic victory if you insist on defining that as a victory.

Sometimes everyone's a loser.

Doesn't Europe already have a digital service tax?

Bitmap brothers are also responsible for one of the most underrated RTS games imo: "Z"

I don't understand how come monorepos never just got "solved", and why git didn't expand in that direction.

I switched from a company with a monorepo to one without, and it just feels like going back to the stone age.

I work at a monorepo company and any time someone gets to work on a project that necessitates working outside of the monorepo, it's a night-and-day improvement.

Tools, especially open source ones (linters, static analysis, scanning, LSPs, IDEs, etc) are not built for monorepos, and with AI Agents working in the monorepo results in an enormous increase in input tokens as the agents are constantly trying to grep this giant source tree.

I'm sure it's possible that we're doing the monorepo thing wrong, but I'm genuinely curious what the upside is that you're experiencing? Or are these drawbacks unique to our implementation?

> Tools, especially open source ones (linters, static analysis, scanning, LSPs, IDEs, etc) are not built for monorepos, and with AI Agents working in the monorepo results in an enormous increase in input tokens as the agents are constantly trying to grep this giant source tree.

I've been thinking that one could dynamically patch .claude/settings.json (or its equivalent for other agents) to allow reads/writes only to the active app/package being edited and its dependencies (other packages/apps).

You can, if you have a trusted build graph. I know that “cone-shaped” checkout tools like this are common in monorepo environments, but unfortunately there aren’t any maintained open source implementations that I’m aware of.

This is a great idea.

I feel like almost every standout product in the world was a result of someone with good instincts and not the results of XFN communication.

Unfortunately it is still the job...