Folks need to clarify that Nvidia's acquisition with Groq is a license and release deal similar to Windsurf, https://t.co/NijX3ALmxf, and other deals, which is a way for Nvidia to avoid anti-trust heat.
Nvidia takes top Groq talent and IP, and leaves behind a zombie company. Ideally Nvidia would buy the entire thing, but Washington is not happy with tech, so this is the game they have to play.
As far as the deal, this now expands Nvidia's AI hardware stack so they have Groq chips that are more efficient at running AI models after they have been trained and more importantly they get access to Groq's software stack so hopefully they can find ways to blend the two so that Ai researchers training on Cuda wont be afraid to run their models on Groq tech.
https://t.co/YOU0ozpf2n
I’m sorry this happened to you, but on the other hand, it’s a bit peculiar to me that you would allow the situation.
The thing you’re describing from Claude 4.6 is a pretty much 1 in 200 turns occurrence for me. And violations of protocols happen approximately 5% of turns. And when it realizes it did something wrong, it tends to panic and compound the problem.
After five or so episodes of catastrophically lost work, eventually we realize
1/ it’s not a backup unless you have it air gapped from Claude
2/ it’s not a backup unless you actually check to see that it really is the thing you expected to be
3/ things did not happen the way they are reported to have happened unless you independently verify, and if you’re relying on data from Claude for that verification, then you didn’t actually verify
4/ 4.7 is worse about this than 4.6
5/ it’s a good idea to have an embedded system of systems that evaluate, coach, advise, and gate each other
chatGPT + CBT = Better Decision making
For the LLM you use regularly a potential prompt "Any predictions I've made that I've shared with you, then you told me to do X, and then I came back with the results."
@Kantrowitz keep up the great interviews, you're a good dude and we need to see you hit 1m subs on YT. Your Microsoft tay story was hilarious.
https://t.co/vhJdSTBAMH
@nabeelqu Ad doesn't matter, and only impact it has is OpenAI leadership continues to take it seriously. @sama and @gdb just ignore and move on. It hurts to see you guys seriously engage with this.
@gdb@claudeai@DarioAmodei Playing for purity rings is never a sound business model.
Best to ignore and keep shipping. End of the day no normie user cares and any researcher that says this bugs them won't leave their equity behind over a marketing message.
@tbpn@Shopify@GergelyOrosz@fnthawar Or just folks that are mentally flexible. When chatGPT came out I was the only project manager at Salesforce/slack that regular used it and I could get project plans completed much faster etc.
Human in the loop is still the way forward. White collar workers except for engineers, have been dealing with tech encroaching on their job tasks since the invention of the typewriter and each time we redefine what work is, adapt, and forget about the change or a new generation sees this new world and thinks it always has been this way.
Most current engineers werent around for when punch card coding was replaced by magnetic tape, floppy disks, and terminals with keyboards starting in the 1960s. Engineers were hesitant but they adapted.
Same thing is going on today with claude code, seeing a lot of copium from engineers about the romanticism of bashing your brain against your keyboard because you dont know wtf to do next or not knowing the right slash command to do XYZ, but all of that is crap and deserves to die.
I hear you but it's not that easy. Owning ≠ merging.
SpaceX owning xAI doesn’t magically make X immune from EU regulation. xAI would almost certainly remain a separate legal entity, precisely so SpaceX doesn’t assume 100% regulatory and civil liability.
At best ads enforcement friction, but not regulation immunity.
Jurisdiction still applies to the operating company.
At best Elon can claim if EU touches xAI it risks SpaceX, which he can, but EU will still push regulations, he can still push for US diplomatic support for the US to have the EU back off, but not immunity.
Last think tsmc has a natural monopoly because of market dynamics and there's nothing inherently bad about that based on their business model. @asianometry
You could make some national security argument, but Im just talking about business.
@asianometry great video replying to @benthompson . I thought his take on AI companies losing billions due to tsmc was off base, no hate, you can't be right on everything.
TSMC has a natural monopoly that silicon valley intentionally gave it because they don't want on their balance sheets the risk of manufacturing semi conductors.
During times of chip scarcity it stinks, but during times of chip glut it's heavenly and outweighs chip shortfalls.
That being said, even if the AI companies had all of their chips they are pricing their their products low to capture market share and do not care about profit now.
Name of the game is the drug dealers creed: get your customers hooked with a free first hit and then ramp up prices once market share is secured.
Keep up the great work asianometry. I owe you and @dylan522p some more ice cream.
https://t.co/Dx3vAqx3qG
AI leaders talk about safety risk of models due to them being raised on stories about the Manhattan project researchers, who were young, smart, and worked on a project that created a true weapon of mass destruction, clean power for generations, and a tool that prevented US and Russia from starting WW3. This is the ultimate god tier story for any up and coming scientist, impact on a scale that changes the trajectory of the planet.
No one likes to hear how easily we are susceptible to stories from history, sci-fi, and folklore, these stories get implanted in our minds subconsciously and we foolishly think that knowing about propaganda somehow makes our animal brain immune to it, as the saying goes, "pride before the fall."
Being they are unconsciously envious of this, their goal is to talk up auto complete on steroids as some existential risk to society bc they too want impact.
We can never truly know what drives each AI lab leader but it's safe to say some are true believers missionary loons that got some success but now their imaginations are running wild, some are seaking personal aggrandizement bc they want to live up to the Manhattan project greats (sadly they won't, life is unfair), others are trying to raise capital, get the best talent, etc.
You'll hear AI leaders talk about the biological risk and mass destruction an unaligned AI could cause. Most folks rightfully laugh because getting info on how to develop viruses is easy, getting a wet lab, compounds and scientists to make them is hard.
The market doesnt understand the economics of AI and confuses discounted pricing for user growth as low prices for ever. We saw this with uber, piles of red ink for years and once market share was secured price increases towards profitability.
https://t.co/B9sH2P5ZY9