Eric Bonabeau

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

Anthropic's Own Goal

Excellent analysis by @ReedAlbergotti at @semafor . The US government's stunning decision to limit access to Fable to any foreign citizen can be debated 𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘮, it is true that Anthropic has kind been asking for it. After so much "the sky is falling" warning, it should not be entirely surprising that others start seeing a piece of the sky crashing too. Whether a unilateral blanket ban is the right answer to a threat that is mysterious and opaque to the public is another question. It is definitely going to boost the status of open weight/open source models, the best of which come mostly from... wait, what?

https://t.co/sT5keDyAlR

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

@FutureJurvetson you so deserve the win!!

[Steve Jurvetson @FutureJurvetson]

And thank you to the Morgan Stanley trading crew in “Mission Control” sculpting the debut of $SPCX today.

Here is the moment of first trade.

P.S. Elon finally agreed to the IPO greenshoe options… but only if the bankers all wore green shoes. 👟
—> Mementos for all.

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

Exactly @altcap!

𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗫 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗮 $𝟭.𝟳 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 $𝟭𝟬 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻) 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄? I thought about the Elon factor and came to this conclusion: SpaceX is an amazing company, a feat of human engineering and ingenuity, a testament to grit, hard work and resilience (and Gwynne) and it would be foolish to "bet" against Elon and his vision. I actually believe that it will be the first $10 trillion company. But it is not there yet. It will earn its valuation, heck, maybe it will reach $100B in revenue by 2027 and then it will be worth $2 trillion. But not today. Even with the Elon premium, the risk is enormous. So why does it have to claim this value today? They have been working on this for 24 years, what's another 2 years? If I were not such an idealist, I would suspect that a lot of rich people who invested in various Elon ventures (X, xAI) need their money back. For sure, Larry Ellison needs his money back.

[Brad Gerstner @altcap]

🇺🇸💰🚀

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

Thank you @mjmauboussin!

[Michael Mauboussin @mjmauboussin]

The brilliant Eric @bonabeau creates a scenario engine for the IPOs of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic. He combines fast-entry index inclusion demand, pro-rata funding sales from existing constituents, discretionary retail rotation out of incumbent equities, and lock-up-driven supply releases. The engine allows you to tune the parameters. No answers but a lot to think about. Full paper in tab at the top right: https://t.co/d9FthtAj1C

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗫 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗮 $𝟭.𝟳 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 $𝟭𝟬 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻) 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄?

Fully agree with my colleague here (not surprising 🚀 ). I thought about the Elon factor and came to this conclusion: SpaceX is an amazing company, a feat of human engineering and ingenuity, a testament to grit, hard work and resilience (and Gwynne) and it would be foolish to "bet" against Elon and his vision. I actually believe that it will be the first $10 trillion company.

But it is not there yet. It will earn its valuation, heck, maybe it will reach $100B in revenue by 2027 and then it will be worth $2 trillion. But not today. Even with the Elon premium, the risk is enormous. So why does it have to claim this value today? They have been working on this for 24 years, what's another 2 years? If I were not such an idealist, I would suspect that a lot of rich people who invested in various Elon ventures (X, xAI) need their money back. For sure, Larry Ellison needs his money back.

[Raphaëlle d'Ornano @Raph_dOrnano]

Today is truly an extraordinary moment. I'll stand by my valuation of $950B for SpaceX based on our frameworks.

That said, one must also acknowledge the singular mark that @elonmusk has made.

@SpaceX is a moonshot, in the financial and entrepreneurial sense. The world needs extraordinary people who can imagine the future that others can't and will it into being.

At that same time, that does not obligate us to abandon all financial rigor or inquiry.

The dawn of the Agentic Era is scrambling all economic models. And so, finding the right balance of financial rigor is warranted to ensure that, at some point, those dreams can become the foundation of a sustainable future.

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

𝗛𝗮𝘀 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗔𝗜 𝗮𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗞𝗣𝗠𝗚 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗕𝗣𝗡?

https://t.co/5ZEX7seW2C

Thanks Craig Reynolds for surfacing this story!

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

🤖 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 "𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴" 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗔𝗜

I find that "going to the gym with an exoskeleton" is of the best metaphors for (lack of) skill acquisition with AI: it might be good to have an exoskeleton at some point in the real world, but you need to grow your skills first without it. Or with it but as a sparring partner not an assistant.

If anything else, so that you are ready when the AI fails and/or the wifi is down. Imagine an airline pilot who only knows how to fly a plane on autopilot: would you feel good sitting in row 17D? You will survive in typical average conditions ± 20%.

That's why it is crucial to think through the use of AI in schools carefully. Again, not necessarily to ban it (except in specific situations), but to design the interactions with AI so that it provides personalized nudging and real growth, not full packaged answers the student will barely remember (if they understand at all). That is the opportunity, let's not squander it.

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

Me showing up at the app gym with my Claude Code Fable exoskeleton.

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

I think I am going to work 24/7 until 6/22.

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

Not having an opinion on SpaceX is going to cost you.
How much must you pay not to play?

Excellent piece by Alphaville on the semi-forced buying of SpaceX stock by benchmark-constrained fund managers who NEED to buy "in the stock memes"...

https://t.co/6xNo9eUQCq

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝗻'𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿

@brianchristian 's 2012 videotaped talk at the @sfiscience contains many little treasures. One of them begins at 15:40 in the video: Claude Shannon's wife was a computer...

Until the middle of the 20th Century, computer was a job title, people who perform calculations. In fact, the word computer as it is used today was intended as a metaphor to help explain the new machinery: "𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘳." Talk about a reversal!

Video: https://t.co/m85AFgBPbg

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝗔𝗜 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀

The title of this nice BGR article did not surprise me (first because the Turing Test, as the article rightfully reminds us, is not very scientific and has highly limiting quirks; second because LLMs have become pretty good at mimicking human text, a super-evolved version of Eliza; and lastly because the preprint it refers to is more than 12 months old, an eternity in AI years even though the PNAS paper just came out).

It is a nicely done, pre-registered study. As the study authors state, "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘈𝘐 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦." In fact I think it answers the question(s) about the effectiveness of "the" test: it is parlor game of historical significance that has outlived its alleged usefulness.

But it did remind me of a delightful and deeply insightful talk I attended in 2012 at the Santa Fe Institute by Brian Christian, the author of 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙃𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙃𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 (2011) [and also Algorithms to Live By (2016, co-authored with Tom Griffiths), and The Alignment Problem (2020)]. In the book, he describes the prize given to computer programs best at passing for humans (the most human computer), but it is mostly about the other, weirder prize for the human person who does the best at convincing judges of their humanness: the most human human. The talk is available on youtube, link in the comments: it is well worth watching not just for the entertainment value but for what it teaches us about what it means to be human.

BGR article: https://t.co/vN0bCvk1qb
PNAS article: https://t.co/RtcYsl3Pyj
@brianchristian website: https://t.co/QpvEZvDSIl
@sfiscience lecture: https://t.co/m85AFgBPbg

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

@profgalloway and crew posted this on June 1st... Thinking of moving to SF? Get a bigger seed round.

https://t.co/OnPdO58yjL

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

The clearest definition of the mysterious and often elusive "context layer". By Atlan's Prukalpa ⚡.

https://t.co/sxSfRFSY6x

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

I know I am late to the party but I find this picture from @victorcoimbra really IS worth a thousand words to explain Jevons-like inflation in AI costs while token prices are free falling.

https://t.co/ES9ditN0fx

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

𝗔𝗜 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝘂𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, a preprint by a team from Carnegie Mellon University, University of Oxford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and UCLA offers a well-designed "𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 (𝘕 = 354) 𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯-𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘴. 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘥 12 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘐 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 (𝘎𝘗𝘛-5) 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘥 3 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺. 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 (𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 0.57 𝘷𝘴. 0.73; 𝘱 < 0.001, 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘦𝘯'𝘴 𝘥 = −0.42) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘱 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 (𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 0.20 𝘷𝘴. 0.11; 𝘱 = 0.031, 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘦𝘯'𝘴 𝘥 = 0.25) 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴." The authors took care of obvious confounders such as skill levels and similar effects were replicated for reading comprehension.

The conclusion stated in the title seems warranted and supported by the evidence. One might argue that a 10-minute test where persistence is measured is of limited applicability, and indeed it is when taken literally (for example an interesting question would be do the effects persist after 1 week?). But I think the more interesting result is in the middle of the paper, when the authors analyze how the AI was used: "𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘈𝘐 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺. 𝘜𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘈𝘐 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴."

In other words, and I think it matters a lot, 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿, 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗜 𝘃𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁-𝗔𝗜, which goes to show that all these half-baked experiments that do not monitor or control how the AI is used and generate "AI is destroying your brain" headlines are doing the whole field a disservice. Using AI is not a sufficiently accurate description of an experiment.

The biggest work that remains to be done is precisely to design the best way to use AI: here we see that using it correctly does not impede abilities.

https://t.co/EwmtaiSZyb

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

My post was censored, so here it is again.

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

Forced Buying and Bagholding

https://t.co/ZjSCyBW2c4

In view of the highly anticipated SpaceX IPO, I wanted to understand how the rest of the US stock market might be impacted, specifically the top stocks comprising the indices (e.g., Nasdaq 100, S&P 500) that will include SpaceX very soon after the IPO after recent changes to inclusion criteria. Forced buying will alter money flows at levels never seen before.

Another intriguing question, under the very reasonable assumption that SpaceX is slightly overvalued (2-4x), who will be holding the bag? And since we're at it, let's consider some other (tiny) upcoming IPOs: OpenAI and Anthropic. There again, how will forced buying and bagholding turn out?

I built a mathematical model and simulated it under a range of scenarios, preprint coming soon. In the meantime, go play with the simulation to see if you might be the one holding the bag.

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

Censorship on X?

I did a test: after 3 days of paid "boosting", which promised an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 views per day, this post about the SpaceX IPO has... 128 views. With boosting, the number of views is not about how interesting the post is but how the X algorithm decides to serve your post. My $30 experiment for 128 views shows that the algorithm is hiding the post.

@elonmusk

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

Yes you can. That's the point.

[Peter H. Diamandis, MD @PeterDiamandis]

There is potential evidence that the Pope's AI statement document was partially written using AI. You cannot make this stuff up!

[Eric Bonabeau @bonabeau]

@GaryMarcus The technology is not the moat.