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

They already have those, for several years if I’m not mistaken.

I’m not sure how you construe “country implements desperate measures during time of existential crisis” with technology only working for a small cabal? If anything this shows that this particular technology is more egalitarian than its predecessors, since it’s cheap and being used effectively by a smaller country defending itself against the territorial ambitions of its imperialist neighbor.

but we’re going to get a 90% cost reduction in the next 18 months… right? Right guys? Sam Altman wouldn’t lie right?

Laying the blame for the transparent financial manipulation we are observing at the feet of regular people (who are putting their savings into their pension funds, a system that we incentivize because of its pro social outcomes) and saying they should just opt out because they should know better, is at best callous, most people should not have to think about that issue at all.

You seem to have misunderstood my comment.

Sure, but you lost the non technical audience by the end of the first sentence.

Then what are we talking about? If this is only about comfort of people who don't give a shit anyways then just relate it to money or cartoons or whatever and walk away. It just doesn't matter.

The only audience qualified to make technical decisions.

Some of the exams in Berkeley were brutal, but they never felt like trick questions, they did on occasion require a level of mastery of the material which was extreme, but it never felt like someone was just trying to make the questions obtuse for the sake of it.

No one consented to training llms, as the op clearly implies, if they had been asked they would have declined to do so. As would all of the many copyright holders who are in the process of suing the model companies.

They all know it’s coming, if it pops before they ipo then they don’t get their billion dollar payday, they have every incentive to move quickly.

FYI they have about a 365 day lockup after IPO before the execs can sell.

They get to sell 20% on day two. Get f’ed everyone!

https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/05/29/spacexs-massive-ip...


Did you read your own link? Quote: "Musk himself is not allowed to participate in any of the early-release provisions."

S-1 isn’t public yet. Source on the lockup period? SpaceX for example filed with accelerated release of insider/investor shares so I don’t think we can know if this is the case until the filing documents become public.

sure but it would be really weird if there wasn't one

Look at SpaceXs filing. There is one but it is super short. I was just pointing out that 365day lockup is likely incorrect and OP doesn’t really know that until the filing is approved and becomes public.

i mean spacex filing reads more like an investor prospectus than an s-1 so, its a few standard deviations off the norm


Going to give the benefit of the doubt here. I know what lockup period means.

365day lockup isn’t a universal standard. For example for SpaceX 20% of insider shares can be sold in the first few days. 100% within the first 3 months.

Without a public S-1 filing we don’t know what the lockup for Anthropic will be


I'm sure they can get private loads or similiar way to "hedge" those? also dark markets and other tricks exist. Fin. eng. level goes way higher for them, just contact inv. banker or their lower class friends. They will find a way.

It cant be that simple, I am sure that they will find some way to make money before that

Well, you are learning something, just the thing you’re learning has an even shorter usable lifespan than programming languages, namely you’re learning what works to get useful responses from ai agents. Whether or not that has value to you is a different matter, but it’s worth bearing in mind something is being learned, even if it’s not engineering or programming.

> namely you’re learning what works to get useful responses from ai agents.

Having worked a lot with AI agents, I don't agree.

AI agents are amazing at producing response and results that look correct as long as you don't look too closely.

Even when I try to write extremely detailed specs and test harnesses, even Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on max will find creative new ways to write code that breaks under real use cases.

Doing throwaway LLM output, playing with it a little bit, and then calling it done will create a false sense that you're really good at getting LLMs to produce working things.


You're learning to manage idiot savants, which is a very useful skill.

The thing is, LLMs are more like the opposite: Sophisticated ignoramuses.

> You're learning to manage idiot savants, which is a very useful skill.

I think the real bifurcation is whether you will settle on that belief.

Some of us are settling on the belief that the idiot savant, lacking the coherence of a functional mind, cannot be managed. It's essentially a chaos agent masquerading as something more cooperative.


They only showed the benchmarks where they outperformed?


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

Search: