Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ar_lan's commentslogin

Because Anthropic and OpenAI are the primary drivers of the AI space?

“We have built this thing that is so powerful that it will wipe out all jobs ever created. Therefore we are the only thing worth investing in.”

But this is marketing. This is just pre-IPO talk.

Anthropic’s goal is not anything to do with AI, it is purely to generate more profit than any other company.

Securing/lobbying to regulate their competitors through doom talk, or promising that they will bankrupt every other company because AI will “do it all, better than everyone else” is purely for investment purpose.

As long as their incentive is monetary, it’s not unreasonable to believe this is just marketing.


Normally, businesses spend a lot of money saying "no, our products are 100% safe" and get very upset with people who say they are not.

You are literally looking at someone who resigned because the company is acting unsafely, where other people from the same company are responding to this by saying "we agree, this is all very unsafe", in a community where all the various competitors have signed public statements saying "this is unsafe", where people who have Nobel prizes are saying "this is unsafe", where the philosophical centre of mass in the current research community circles around MIRI and LessWrong where the founders made the book "if anyone builds it, everyone dies" because they are so very tired of having to explain that they mean literally, where one of the major independent research organisations is "Model Evaluation and Threat Research", and where the major model makers have been sued for harm already caused by their systems and in one case have been ordered by the US government to prevent people accessing their model because they thought it was too dangerous.

A normal business would be shut down by almost any of these things independently, let alone all of them together. This remains true regardless of whether or not the leaders are psychopathic enough to think this is a good marketing campaign or not.

If this doesn't convince you there's a risk, what on earth would convincing you even look like?


I am absolutely appalled that this type of marketing is allowed. It is so disingenuous.

Am I the only one starting to get annoyed by Bun just due to all the surrounding drama? I was genuinely surprised this was an actual link about an update - my gut inclination opening that was Jarred probably decided to rewrite Bun to JavaScript to stay pure or something like that.


We all are, mostly.


In my experience Sonnet is actually pretty good at coding tasks, at least with Go.


Another AI slop post — so hot these days.


> Energy drinks don't have much caffeine in them

I'm just pulling the most prominent ones at my nearest gas station:

* Celsius: 200mg

* Alani Nu: 200mg

* Rockstar: 160mg

* Monster: 160mg

* Reign: 300mg

* Bang: 300mg

* Red Bull: 80mg

* Ghost: 200mg

* C4: 200mg

* NOS: 160mg

A standard soda can is about 35mg caffeine.

I do not think it's a myth to claim that on average, energy drinks have a high amount of caffeine.


It's not high, as per the same article, drinking 2 of those a day would be fine right? The ones you've listed also are always the big cans (for most) which to be a fair comparison with commercial coffees would also be large jugs.

The comparison isn't versus Soda which are considered not caffeinated by most people but against regular coffees, commercial coffees specifically (as home-made energy drinks are relatively healthy, similar to home made coffees).

Now pull the average Starbucks coffee list, it's likely higher in average.


https://www.starbucks.com/menu/product/565/hot/nutrition https://www.starbucks.com/menu/product/1044/iced/nutrition

Pulling even their largest coffee drinks (sampling a few) they all appear to be under 200mg of caffeine (mostly in the 90-150mg range)


With Fable 5 that did a websearch, specific drinks do have a bit lower content than Energy drinks yes, but most have a higher content, and if we are talking about Redbulls, then virtually every Starbucks drink is higher:

1 Monster = "Big can" (16 oz)

Size-by-Size Comparison ~8–10 oz (Small / Short)

Starbucks Short Pike Place 180 mg ≈ 1.1 Monsters

Starbucks Short Blonde 180 mg ≈ 1.1 Monsters

Starbucks Short Latte/Cappuccino 75 mg ≈ 0.5 Monster

Dunkin’ Small Original 150 mg ≈ 0.9 Monster

McCafé Small Coffee 109 mg ≈ 0.7 Monster

Peet’s Small Brewed 150 mg ≈ 0.9 Monster

Monster (for scale) 160 mg = 1.0

=====

~12 oz (Tall / Medium-small)

Starbucks Tall Blonde 270 mg ≈ 1.7 Monsters

Starbucks Tall Pike Place 260 mg ≈ 1.6 Monsters

Starbucks Tall Cold Brew 155 mg ≈ 1.0 Monster

Starbucks Tall Americano 150 mg ≈ 0.9 Monster

Starbucks Tall Latte 75 mg ≈ 0.5 Monster

Dunkin’ Small–Med iced/coffee 150–210 ≈ 0.9–1.3

McCafé Medium Coffee 145 mg ≈ 0.9 Monster

Costa Medio coffee ~280 mg ≈ 1.75 Monsters

=====

~16 oz (Grande / Medium)

Starbucks Grande Blonde 360 mg ≈ 2.25 Monsters

Starbucks Grande Pike Place 310 mg ≈ 1.9 Monsters

Starbucks Grande Cold Brew 205 mg ≈ 1.3 Monsters

Starbucks Grande Nitro Cold Brew 280 mg ≈ 1.75 Monsters

Starbucks Grande Americano 225 mg ≈ 1.4 Monsters

Starbucks Grande Latte 150 mg ≈ 0.9 Monster

Dunkin’ Medium Original 210 mg ≈ 1.3 Monsters

Dunkin’ Medium Cold Brew 260 mg ≈ 1.6 Monsters

McCafé Large Coffee 180 mg ≈ 1.1 Monsters

Peet’s Medium Brewed 240–270 ≈ 1.5–1.7

Tim Hortons Large ~270 mg ≈ 1.7 Monsters

Monster 16 oz 160 mg = 1.0

=====

~20–24 oz (Venti / Large / XL)

Starbucks Venti Blonde (hot 20 oz) 475 mg ≈ 3.0 Monsters

Starbucks Venti Pike Place (20 oz) 410 mg ≈ 2.6 Monsters

Starbucks Venti Cold Brew (24 oz) 310 mg ≈ 1.9 Monsters

Starbucks Venti Americano (20 oz) 300 mg ≈ 1.9 Monsters

Starbucks Venti Latte (20 oz) 150 mg ≈ 0.9 Monster

Dunkin’ Large Original 300 mg ≈ 1.9 Monsters

Dunkin’ Large Cold Brew 347 mg ≈ 2.2 Monsters

Dunkin’ XL (24 oz) 360 mg ≈ 2.25 Monsters

Costa Massimo 350–400+ ≈ 2.2–2.5

Monster 24 oz 240 mg = 1.5

===


I thought Elon and Trump broke up?


People like that are never friends. It’s a relationship of convenience and power exchange. The public riff was because Elon got upset over something and threw a tantrum.

Some think the index deal was in exchange for Elon helping fund the midterm battle. Scott Galloway, for example.


Have they? Maybe some spacex investor is the “most beautiful we ever had”.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: