MCP makes a lot, lot more sense when you think of it as as a auth standard and not a comparison with CLIs. It obviously does more than just auth, but having standardised auth (which CLIs definitely do not) is the real 'killer' feature.
Imagine in C# you are training the model with RL loops in a harness. One uses C#12 and one uses C#15 (when released), with union types (and importantly - includes the release notes in the harness). Union types if used properly will reduce the amount of bugs/issues in theory from "forgetting" about certain conditions, because the compiler will enforce that better.
In theory, the one with union types will "win" (less errors/fewer edits required) in certain conditions, which makes it more likely to be used going forward.
Basically I think it looks less about 'ingest lots of slop' but 'how do we give our RL harnesses the best possible tools and documentation to make the best* code'. I think this is exactly what good engineering teams do.
For example, if I put 'use C#15 union types' in my CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md on a .net11 preview project, it is very good at using them when required. It doesn't take much instruction for an agent to use new language features.
_However_ what it does do is change the language feature adoption from 'many developers' to 'eval writers and people that put features into CLAUDE.md'. This obviously changes things massively - though I sort of suspect very few developers _actually_ adopt new language features quickly.
Final thought is that I think we may see a lot of different features being adopted. Instead of what makes code readable to humans, what makes code better on evals. I sort of suspect we'll end up with some Frankenstein language in the future that is difficult for humans to write but agents can write extremely well, with esoteric language features that no (sane) human would think to use.
Micron said that they tried to tell 2 of their largest customers (one almost certainly Apple) that the prices they were demanding would result in the cancellation of a lot new construction in 2023, which wasn't in the industries best interests.
It is sort of Apple's fault. They are probably the biggest single buyer of DRAM and NAND globally and they pride themselves on their supply chain management under Cook.
Really sad. I grew up reading his writing. I emailed him some thoughts on one of his blog and he immediately replied in a lovely way very recently. What a shock and a loss.
Well, the EU insists that track & train operations are separate. (ironically the UK _is_ combining passenger operations and track somewhat back together, which is only possible because of brexit).
The bigger issue tbh is the enormous cost inflation in civil engineering in general. This seems to be a problem everywhere. There's no doubt some of this is caused by material cost increases, labour shortages etc, but I'd say the huge amounts of regulation added over the years is really a core driver of this.
Yes agreed, for example, there was an interesting table on the starlink page I used to check every so often showing which countries had access to starlink as it was rolled out. Was interesting to see the expansion.
Of course, some editor decided it was 'marketing' for starlink so it got deleted despite loads of people protesting. It was the only source I could find easily for showing which country got starlink when.
A huge list of prose is still on the page (not marketing?) showing the updates in a very hard to read and not comprehensive way. Something is really quite wrong over there.
But in reality, 32B dense is very similar* to 32B activated on MoE in terms of inference costs. And I highly suspect eg Opus is around that level of active params.
A 284ba13b model at scale, is almost certainly cheaper to serve than a 32b dense model.
*as you can shard the model across multiple GPUs at scale. but in reality you have some loss of efficiency from GPU coordination and expert routing
I get that, but anyone else releasing a model of similar capabilities has the advantage that they haven't spent the last few months hyping the danger up to fever pitch.
If you set aside political menace, this is a huge problem with Anthropic's strategy.
You _cannot_ say that Mythos is super dangerous and can only be rolled out to certain people, but then release Fable with anything other than bulletproof cyber denials.
Clearly with LLMs, bulletproof denials are ~impossible due to the way LLMs work.
So you've ended up in a situation where Anthropic are simultaneously claiming it's a incredibly dangerous model _and_ there are (minor, potentially) problems with the security "protections".
As technical people we understand that nothing can be perfect, esp in LLM world. But all my non technical friends were really confused how they had managed to make the model "safe" so quickly when it was released and the general sentiment was it shouldn't have been released - and now to an outsider I think it looks like it was never safe at all to release, so I can totally see how the current US administration have got themselves very upset with it.
_Even if_ there was no political bad will, it's a bit of a silly scenario to end up in, and really quite easily foreseen.
Keep in mind Google also rents GPUs via GCP, so they could be just reselling these to GCP customers?
Thing is though, Anthropic was really against the wall with lack of compute pre xAI deal. And tbh, Gemini reliability has been abysmal which probably points to real compute shortages.
And nearly _every_ major DC project is really up against it with massive delays, etc. Stargate UAE has been badly affected by the Iran conflict.
So maybe long term this isn't a great business, but _right now_ I'm not convinced it's all financial engineering. There is a enormous shortage of compute and xAI has a load of it _available now_.
Don't think so - the 3x is a separate cap. It actually reduces it down from market cap.
Eg say spaceX has $50bn of float at $1.5T valuation. If there wasn't _any_ cap at all, the full $1.5T would be used as the market cap. With the (new) 3x cap, it means only $150bn of the $1.5T valuation is taken into account in the index weighting.
Before this change, SpaceX wouldn't clear the 10% requirement to be listed in QQQ at all. So the 3x basically allows them to be included but _does not_ increase their market cap from $1.5T to $4.5T.
Btw, for clarity, I'm not saying there isn't questionable behaviour going on here. My main point is that even if SpaceX, openai and anthropic all went to 0 (unlikely IMO), it's not going to have a material impact on people's retirements which is what OP was proposing.
meet.hn/city/gb-Cardiff