anthropic are about to face a brutal reality check
$13B raised vs openai's $40B and big tech's $300B+ ai spend
zero infrastructure ownership while google/meta/xAI build $100B data centers
5% of chatgpt's users means they're fighting for scraps
majour outages and inference issues
๐ Hello, Kimi K2 Thinking!
The Open-Source Thinking Agent Model is here.
๐น SOTA on HLE (44.9%) and BrowseComp (60.2%)
๐น Executes up to 200 โ 300 sequential tool calls without human interference
๐น Excels in reasoning, agentic search, and coding
๐น 256K context window
Built as a thinking agent, K2 Thinking marks our latest efforts in test-time scaling โ scaling both thinking tokens and tool-calling turns.
K2 Thinking is now live on https://t.co/YutVbwktG0 in chat mode, with full agentic mode coming soon. It is also accessible via API.
๐ API is live: https://t.co/EOZkbOwCN4
๐ Tech blog: https://t.co/n7xxaszqzF
๐ Weights & code: https://t.co/4ukcXB0iP6
building a business is far more "charitable" than donating to charity, here's why:
#1 -- charity creates dependency
There are several major studies on this...
- Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study (1935-1945)
- 650 students (ages 5-13) randomly assigned to receive free counseling, tutoring, summer camps...
- 30 years later? these students had MUCH worse outcomes than the control group
- higher alcoholism, serious mental illnesses, lower job prestige, lower job satisfaction
Another example:
- Dambisa Moyo - "Dead Aid" (2009)
- Africa received $1+ trillion in aid over 50 years
- in the 1970s, when aid increased, poverty also increased
- countries that were ahead of China 30 years ago, are now far behind
Giving people free stuff stops them from developing self-reliance, causing more harm than good.
----
#2 -- businesses solve problems.
To build a large business, especially a multi-billion dollar one, you must solve an important problem that a lot of people have.
You have to build a great product, deliver an amazing service, and often invent new technology or solutions.
All of these things benefit society greatly.
In the process, the business ends up creating thousands of new jobs for people.
Also, there's a reason why you don't see a non-profit trying to go to Mars, or a charity that builds electric vehicles to combat climate change.
Companies are also far more efficient than governments or charities at using resources to solve problems.
"If you're a billionaire... why are you a billionaire?"
Well, my dear Billie...
- did Jeff Bezos force you to buy Amazon Prime?
- Did Zuck make your use Instagram?
- Did Steve Jobs threaten you to purchase an iPhone?
I can't believe I even have to explain these things...
Building a business is good.
Building a multi-billion dollar business is very good.
----
Conclusion? Don't let low-IQ people like Billie bully you into giving all your money to charity.
Instead, use that money to build a business that solves an important problem for many people.
----
pro tip: if you have money, and you want to do something good with it - tip heavily.
tip the waiter, tip the delivery driver, tip the kid with a lemonade stand.
reward the people who try.
You would like to think a lot, but being honest, and non naive, likely not many.
But acting surprised makes our society put that behavior on a pedestal, which IMO makes it easier not to act this way.
Gives people a excuse of thinking "this is what everyone else would do not a big deal".
i honestly think the term โfull stackโ, has aged like milk
yes, one person can make decent apps alone
but when the term came around in the mid 2000s, it just meant you could build something end to end wire up a few pages, throw together a database, ship it somewhere, done.
now it means youโre supposed to know next.js inside out, architect on aws, spin up docker containers, manage ci/cd pipelines, style everything with tailwind, set up terraform for infra, handle auth with clerk, and somehow still write clean react code.
yes this exist.
but not at the pinnacle.
the best are teams of specialists going for a generalist goals.