“That unlocks something beyond energy savings: the possibility of eliminating water consumption entirely.”
They’ve made this claim numerous times in the article and I really don’t understand it. The building has tons of water being recirculated through it. That water came from somewhere in the surrounding natural world. How is that 0 water consumption?
We’ve got a company of several thousand employees serving hundreds of millions of people arguably the best AI model in the market. Meanwhile you’re asking for a handkerchief for your pool of tears because their product is struggling to do your daily job functions for you, with much of that due to being limited by the worlds supply of silicon, electricity, water, and other resources. Cry me a river.
Yes but my original reply was to someone that seemed to imply that this founder was dumb not to verify that Railway’s API key that should have been limited to managing custom domains, truly was limited to managing custom domains. I’ve never used Railway but my pushback is that no one in the real world exhaustively verifies a key is scoped properly against all 3rd party endpoints. We trust vendors to document how they’re scoped and to actually do that.
“why would you not do the same for APIs you integrate with?”
Who does that? Jira and Salesforce have hundreds of endpoints each. AWS has hundreds of services, and each may have hundreds of endpoints. Who on your team is testing key scopes of every endpoint? Do you do it for each key you generate? After all, that external system could have a bug at any moment in managing scopes. Or they could introduce new endpoints that aren’t handled properly. So for existing keys, how frequently do you re-validate the scope against all the endpoints?
Sorry but are you implying that for every system you integrate with, you verify the scope of an API key by checking each CRUD operation on every API endpoint they provide?
“I think the decision was made because the people making this decision at Anthropic are well-intentioned, driven by values, and motivated by trying to make the transition to powerful AI to go well.”
Every single one of these CEOs happily pirated unimaginable amounts of copyrighted content. That directly hurt millions of real human beings. Not just the prior creators but also crushing the future potential for success of future ones.
“You never needed 1000s of engineers to build software anyway”
What is the point of even mentioning this? We live in reality. In reality, there are countless companies with thousands of engineers making each piece of software. Outside of reality, yes you can talk about a million hypothetical situations. Cherry picking rare examples like Winamp does nothing but provide an example of an exception, which yes, also exists in the real world.
This was a great article. The section “Training for the next state prediction” explains a solution using subagents. If I’m understanding it correctly, we could test if that solution is directionally correct today, right? I ask a LLM a question. It comes up with a few potential responses but sends those first to other agents in a prompt with the minimum required context. Those subagents can even do this recursively a few times. Eventually the original agent collects and analyzes subagents responses and responds to me.
Yea I guess that's accurate but they also explained that AI capabilities advance every 6-12 months and managing a team of agents buys you a few years. So their proposed solution and conclusion that it keeps you safe for years makes no sense right now. Multi agent orchestration, with an agent doing the orchestrating, is all the craze nowadays.
The author gives this example of the problem and incorrect way to leverage AI:
"Sarah was relieved. She thought she could focus on high-value synthesis work. She’d take the agent’s output and refine it, add strategic insights, make it client-ready."
Then they propose a long winded solution which is essentially the same exact thing but uses the magical term "orchestrate" a few times to make it sound different.
“existence is a requirement to have morality. That implies that the highest good are those decisions that improve the long-term survival odds of a) humanity, and b) the biosphere.”
Those are too pie in the sky statements to be of any use in answering most real world moral questions.