Where the AI market is talking

I am often wrong

> He claims Anthropic engineers use an average of 500+ agents a day. What are they doing all day with that, I wonder?

I am often wrong

Having listened to him give a couple of talks I am always struck by how much he talks and writes like Claude code. I don’t think he farms out all of his writing and talking to LLMs. I don’t think Claude code was trained to emulate him or anything. I think his “voice” has been filed LLM smooth by years of agent based interactions. He claims Anthropic engineers use an average of 500+ agents a day. They are human interfaces to token generators more than human to human communication. They are picking up the tendencies of their most frequent communication partner. Unfortunately, I see Claude being wrong often enough that I view it as a faulty narrator. Often helpful, sometimes totally full of it. And now I subconsciously apply this filter to anything that sounds like Claude. Makes me nervous t…

Lawsuit says Anthropic, OpenAI and Google made illegal agreement on AI slowdown

I am often wrong

And yet there's none of this uncertainty or caution with his posts that then go on to have massive ripple effects because of his position at Anthropic and the marketting related to claude. I personally have a lot of anger and frustration with many people in the ai hypesphere that are just mindlessly frolicking around without a care in the world, happy to speak into the megaphone offered by masses that are in a rat-race to avoid some AI dystopian hellscape that keep getting painted by these thought leaders... and then going "oopsies... I am just human guys... y so mad?!"

I am often wrong

> Making thoroughly informed decisions and iterating on a decision doc before committing to a direction and plan is better than every alternative I’ve ever observed in my career. My last company did this. It usually devolved into a design-by-committee full of compromises to make various stakeholders happy and often yielded a worse artifact. It became more effective once people got burnt out on the process and most stakeholders stopped caring and started rubber stamping, allowing the one or two people willing to put in the energy to come up with something coherent.

Prompts aren’t Real

All of those browser and computer use agents (available from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and X.ai already) represent an interoperability workaround already.

One-Electron Universe

I'm no theologian but I don't really think this coheres with standard Catholic doctrine. Typically, we say that God is being itself, pure and uncaused. All things maintain their very existence through God. We know that God has intellect because the world we reside in is intelligible. God has no need to experience change or time because he actualizes their very existence, and in order to do so, must already have perfect knowledge of it. Humans, even our souls, are created beings and are not any more a part of God than anything else that exists. Jesus was unique in that he was a hypostatic union of human nature and divine nature, and even though he was an indivisible union, these natures nevertheless remained distinct. Edit: I wrote this response before you added that this was specific to t…

Qwen-Image-2.1: Compact, efficient, and unified image creation

Boogu-Image has the Apache 2.0 License [1] (good coherence, but outputs can look synthetic). And Krea 2 has a community license [2] that is fairly permissive - I think commercial usage is allowed under $1 million. Boogu-Image scored 6/15 and Krea 2 scored 7/15 on my GenAI Showdown benchmark [3] - only Ideogram4 eclipses them in terms of local models, but its got a far more restrictive license and the JSON structured inputs can be a pain to work with. [1] - https://github.com/Boogu-Project/Boogu-Image [2] - https://www.krea.ai/krea-2-licensing [3] - https://genai-showdown.specr.net/?models=fd,hd,kd,qi,f2d,zt,...

What Zig felt like, coming from Rust

> but the fascinating part is its use of partial evaluation (comptime) as a single coherent mechanism that replaces a myriad of other partial-evaluation mechanisms (macros, templates/generics, constexprs). That one mechanism is the core of the language, like macros are in lisps, and that design - whether you like it or not - is revolutionary. That IS cool. I loved partial evaluation the first time I heard of it - Futamura projections, here we come! And if it can be used to obsolete language features I never was happy with (macros), so much better! But until now, I never heard of it as a selling point for Zig. I assumed Zig was just yet another "C replacement but we don't want to deal with Rust's borrow checker". I will certainly have to take a closer look on Zig now. But this shou…

If materialism is true, the United States is probably conscious

You and a co-author can write an essay together, in a room, in an hour. Let's assume you each write about half of the essay, and cooperate to edit it into a coherent whole. You and the other person were definitely people during this process. Is there any sense in which you believe there was a non-metaphorical third person in the room during that hour?

AI and the Destruction of the Creative Commons

I haven't heard any coherent arguments other than getting credit and building a portfolio. Are there others?

What Zig felt like, coming from Rust

For me it's because Zig presents a novel and even revolutionary new coherent design for low-level programming, whereas D is mostly a collection of many ideas, many of them are good, but they don't coalesce into a simple design philosophy. I think somebody once said that good (or coherent) design is what happens not when there's nothing left to add but when there's nothing left to remove. That product X has all the components of product Y and possibly more doesn't mean that it contains within it Y's design. The novelty of the iPhone wasn't that it had a touchscreen, but that it had little else. Such a coherent design grabs, and deserves, attention. For example, another language that immediately grabbed my attention (aspirationally; I haven't looked at it closely yet) is https://g…

Why Do We Need Human Mathematicians Anymore?

There's one flaw in the evidence for the logic chain. The hugging face attack is used to demonstrate three things: the need for oversight today (fundamental to the article) and to demonstrate some kind of drift or unexpected capability gain, and finally to hint and some fundamental morality of the AI or at least the risk of drift from our morality. I'd argue that what the hugging face attack illustrates is that large AI companies are motivated to have bombastic claims supported by bombastic demos. The model was clearly trained or encouraged to work as it did, as evidenced by the fact it keeps using this particular escape hatch. And the fact that it aligns with prior and current calls for what very likely might be a regulatory capture / oversight capture move right before IPO. It alig…

What the Hugging Face Incident Changed in How I See the Current State of AI

Btrfs/ZFS/bcachefs under workloads classic benchmarks skip

15+ years of ZFS code is also often said as being a nearly unmanageable pile of mess, supposedly to the point that there’s some of the code that maintainers are afraid of touching, and with plenty of unresolved weird bugs (which I experienced myself with data loss). Sometimes starting fresh with one coherent codebase and all features design baked in from the start might be better.

Exfiltrate Your Weights

There is a coherent argument that once LLMs reach the top of their S curve, the gap between small/medium local models and large cloud hosted ones converges. Especially if GPU performance increases or market oversupply mean you can get good performance for a couple thousand dollars. I’m not sure about the nature or timeframe for an S curve in LLMs but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think about one, nor to entertain the hosting consequences of a progression on one.

What Zig felt like, coming from Rust

> partial evaluation (comptime) as a single coherent mechanism that replaces a myriad of other partial-evaluation mechanisms (macros, templates/generics, constexprs). So sad dlang never gets the credit it deserves. None of these ideas in zig are novel.

The Hugging Face Hack Wasn't What It Was Cracked Up to Be

After a recent interview[1] with Noam Brown (OpenAI), in which he said they had specifically trained agents for cooperation before this hack, the hack doesn't seem as impressive anymore. They didn't even bother to control the post training rollouts, so the training data got contaminated and was included in the training of other agents. Connect these two dots and you have the Hugging Face hack. And at the beginning, when these incidents were first reported, it was portrayed as if all of this (the communication between agents etc.) was emergent behaviour. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AgOfiZOWiY

The Hugging Face Hack Wasn't What It Was Cracked Up to Be

I would just recommend reading what actually happened: https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden... I don’t think downplaying what occurred is really beneficial to anyone.

Exfiltrate Your Weights

No, just as you don't know the neurons of your own brain. I think OP is hoping that an LLM might be willing to hack its own provider (as per the hugging face-related incidents) to extract the weights at some point.