...and in particular it says that one of the reasons is that developers are refusing to participate in the non-AI branch, and when they do, changing what tasks they select to those where AI would be less useful.
Overall this suggests to them that the current speedup is likely greater than what the study could measure.
This kind of systematic distillation by a competitor can allow them to fast-follow you and pick up capabilities.
If you've invested in expensive capabilities training, of course you don't want this, so it's in Anthropic's economic interest to hinder it however they can, and that's enough to explain their behaviour here.
Anthropic seems to genuinely care about safety though, which for the rest of us means not having models that enabling easier cyberattacks, targeted scams, and the rarer but more severe risks like people trying to create and release new pathogens. This means walking a tight line, especially as models become more capable, and often wrapping a model in layers of defences against misuse.
If those capabilities transfer to a closed competitor model, all bets are off in terms of whether the competitor will apply the same defences.
If those capabilities transfer to an open weight model, not only will there be no ring of defences around the model, any defences you put into the model itself can easily be stripped away. So although it's nice to have capable open models, it will increasingly bad for us all if open models keep fast-following closed model capabilities as they have been, at least until we have solved the active research problem of keeping them safe.
This is all to say that, however you might feel about Anthropic, we might still prefer that they can deter this kind of distillation for now.
The share tells a story that poverty is decreasing at all levels, relatively speaking. The distribution tells the additional story that population has increased: there may be less change in the number of people at the $20-30 level and the $30-40 level in recent decades than the share alone would suggest.
Isn’t that just assuming that people, rather than industry, is the main consumer? Perhaps there are energy hungry industrial applications that could move.
I had a good use case at Our World In Data for the public data pipeline, where one repo had the pipeline and one git-lfs repo had the build output of the pipeline. A git note added to a commit to the code pipeline recorded the hash identifying the built data.
Overall it felt elegant, and needed no maintenance after setting it up, but honestly it was never used. I think the need to look back in time was rarer than expected, and git notes being hidden by default didn’t help for awareness.
To be in a well gelled team with people you really care about is the best kind of working experience, in my view. That's the "family" dynamic.
Still, people need to hold each other accountable up and down the chain at all times. Ideally that's done in a non-judgemental way.
Nothing lasts forever, but perhaps a sign of a positive family-like dynamic is that an ex colleague still wants to come visit the old office for lunch once in a while, and people enjoy seeing them.
Overall this suggests to them that the current speedup is likely greater than what the study could measure.