3/ so I can decide how credible this is, etc. It doesn't have to have all of the Google Maps features, but a good map would definitely be my go to when deciding where to go or what to do. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk. @TessaLyonsLaing
2/ the place (!!!). Instead of having to keep going to Google Maps, how about Instagram would create a map, that I can instantly save the recommendation in the video (whether or not it is mentioned in the caption, because now we have AI), the map would link back to the influencer
1/ Unsolicited advice for product folks at @Meta: Instagram Maps. I've recently moved to NYC, and no matter what I do I can't seem to stop seeing videos where influencers recommend places to visit/eat/drink. When I'm finally convinced, I need to go to Google Maps to save
@PaulBonnet So you think this differs in price from other sectors. Makes sense. Curious to see if indeed someone from this category would break through
1/2 Thanks Gavin for an especially thoughtful exchange. I don't usually spend much time on social media but I wanted to engage here because it really brings out the heart of an important conversation.
First, on regulation, I think that “either concentrate it in the hands of a chosen few companies and politicians via regulation or distribute it widely” is a false choice. I know that there’s a sort of Silicon Valley shorthand where regulation = regulatory capture = concentration of power, but I’ve always found this to be an overly simplified picture of the world. Many people outside this bubble think of regulation as something that constrains corporate power and benefits ordinary people. I don’t necessarily agree with that perspective either, rather I think it’s complicated and really depends on what the “regulation” consists of. But in particular I think that those in the “regulation = regulatory capture = concentration of power” frame often underrate the decentralizing power of objective and fair institutional processes. A crude analogy is that the formal court system can sometimes feel stuffy and elitist, but it does a much better job of defending the rights of vulnerable individuals than the alternative, mob justice. At their best, institutions can vest power in ideas rather than people, and thereby decentralize that power.
This is why Anthropic has always made its policy proposals very carefully. We try very hard to make proposals that disadvantage (slow down) frontier AI companies while *advantaging* smaller competitors. California’s SB53 (which we supported), and even the much-maligned SB 1047 (which we were ambivalent on), completely exempt any company below a certain amount of revenue or model training costs from being covered at all (it was $500M for SB 53, lower for 1047 but we objected to that). More recently the testing process we’ve advocated for at CAISI and the White House involves more rigorous tests for frontier models than off-frontier models — something that differentially advantages challengers. Similarly, the “Pacing the Frontier” letter envisions (or at least Anthropic’s preferred implementation of it envisions) modulating the pace of the very best models while not constraining those who are catching up. This hurts the business interests of the frontier labs and helps challengers, including open-weights!
Overall my view is that AI is *structurally* a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws). Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution because they simply shift the concentration somewhat to those with the most compute and chips (which are roughly the frontier labs plus maybe hardware providers). By contrast I think the right “rules of the road” can simultaneously (a) address AI’s cyber/bio/alignment risks, (b) institutionally constrain the power of the frontier AI companies, and (c) leave room for open-weights models while also addressing the specific risks that they bring.
BTW I do not think that the events of the last few months have “failed to result in [my] preferred regulatory path”. The approach that the Trump administration is reported to be taking — pre-deployment testing for frontier models, and also testing of open-weights models when they get closer to the frontier — is one that I am very supportive of, though of course I have to see the details to be sure. I am also supportive of Demis Hassabis’ ideas around a FINRA-like entity. This contrasts with six months ago when most of the industry was still pushing for preemption of all state regulation and no apparent federal approach either.
@RoKhanna@mcuban Aside from it being a very bad policy as people suggested, the thing is it's by definition value destructive. How would you price a company whose founders would get into debt? And if they liquidate- they no longer worth what you claim they are
Chamath's piece on the collapse of terminal value is a must read - https://t.co/9qxgHbYBsU
But I think it has a missing nuance. Link in the first comment.
Happy to hear some thoughts!
@aakashgupta Not complying with the license is wrong but other than that- why does it matter that they didn't train the model? It's part of the game, you don't get extra points for efforts, and $50B in this growth rate is ~10% NTM ARR. Not unheard of...
@urieli17 לפי ההערכות הפיננסיות הgross margin שלהם באיזורי ה60% אם אני זוכר נכון, והם מצפים להיות רווחיים ב2028
פחות מסתדר עם סבסוד של פי 2 עד פי 25 מעלות המנוי
מישהו משקר, או קרסר או אנטרופיק
@aakashgupta It's absolutely an amzing achievement, and Maor and the tram are absolute beasts. BUT- when talking abut acquisition ROI we need to factor costs. I'd imagine that the escape velocity comes from Wix crazy Marketing engine distributing Base, in that case- what's the net revenue?