> OpenAI is worth many multiples of that.

How?

Because they recently issued shares at a price many multiples of that, and people bought them. How else would you define financial worth?

I would use your number adjusted by some demand elasticity curve.

The "back-of-the-napkin" only has enough room to estimate based on recently issued share price. Seems reasonable to me.

Sure, for napkin level math you can go with this, and multiply by some simple multiplier, I like 70%.

Same thing happened with self-driving cars. Oh and cryptocurrencies.

Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has. Its not comparable.

Crypto was flawed from the beginning and lots of people didn't understood it properly. Not even that a blockchain can't secure a transaction from something outside of a blockchain.

The LLMs are flawed, and lots of people don't understand them properly.

People are researching how to make LLMs more stable and from a statistic point of view, we already now down to 10% (progress is made here).

LLMs don't have to be perfect, they just need to be as good as humans and cheaper or easier to manage.

> Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has. Its not comparable.

$100+ billion in R&D and it's not comparable... hmm

> Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has.

And yet they don't do really good jobs with pretty much anything, save for software development, to which people still seem pretty split as far as it being a helpful thing. That's before we even factor in the cost.

I find them very helpful. I use gemini regularly for multiply things.

I also believe that whatever code researchers and other non software engineers wrote before coding agents, were similiar shitty but took them a lot longer to write.

Like do you know how many researchers need to do some data analysis and hack around code because they never learned programming? So so many. If they know how to verify their data (which they needed to know before already), a LLM helps them already.

There is also plenty of other code were perfection doesn't matter. Non SaaS software exists.

For security experts, we just saw whats happening. The curl inventor mentioned it online that the newest AI reports for Security issues are real and the amount of security gaps found are real and a lot of work.

Image generation is very good and you can see it today already everywere. From cheap restaurants using it, to invitations, whatsapp messages, social media, advertising.

I have a work collegue, who is in it for 6 years and he studied, he is so underqualified if you give me his salary as tokens today, i wouldn't think for a second to replace him.

I don't particularly care about coding and didn't weigh in on it. There is no dispute that people debate if it is effective at that. You can take that debate up with them, not me.

Companies are starting this year with an agentic layer. We will see how this will affect broader areas

Yeah and every year before there was another poster telling me the next model iteration would be enough.

The problem here is the adoption curve; Right now it might feel to you that its not worth it or not happening as it might for most people.

Than suddenly one model update moves it from 80% to 85% and now 30% of the market wants to use it.

Then it might be already too late to act like using it to your advantage, being a valuable expert or deciding things long term based on the new state of affairs.

You're in denial and this is cope. The tools aren't even close. The notion that any model is 5% away from doing what has been promised *FOR YEARS* is just facially ridiculous.

>Then it might be already too late to act like using it to your advantage, being a valuable expert or deciding things long term based on the new state of affairs.

There's no universe where this is happening. The tools just are not that good. It's been years of folks like you telling me my job will disappear, but the only thing that this has demonstrated is that the vast majority programmers have *NO IDEA* what other people actually do for a living and how they do it.

The point is, a lot of work went into making that happen. I.e., plain text as it is today is not some inherent property of computing. It is a binary protocol and displaying text through fonts is also not a trivial matter.

So my question is: what are we leaving on the table by over focusing on text? What about graphs and visual elements?

TUIs can include these, see the kitty graphics protocol, implemented by most if not all modern terminals.

https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/graphics-protocol/

I was not very descriptive, but I was referring to the next layer up of building blocks. Instead of text, we could also express things in hybrid ways with text but also visual nodes that can carry more dense information. The usual response is that those things don't work with text-based tools, but that's my point. Text based tools needed invention and decades of refinement, and they're still not all that great.

And what do we gain by leaving things on the table?

That's just one view of the stack and isn't a systems view. Other things support and interact with those other things.

Algae are the bottom of the ocean food chain. Everything interacts with it. But algae's happy to grow in a bowl of water left in the sun.

Lots of things eat krill and small fish. They're near the bottom of the foodchain too. In addition to algae, krill are opportunistic omnivores who often consume detritus. But their primary diet is algae. Small fish tend to be pretty similar.

It's not that other things don't interact with algae or krill or small fish, it's that those groups are the foundation bedrock of the ocean ecology. And single celled organisms like algae are tough as nails in aggregate. Couldn't kill them all if we tried. Pool owners will be familiar with the struggle.

But it's not a bottom up interaction. If whales are killed off from climate change, then those other things can get out of control. Too much algae, and then you have hypoxic environments.

A perfect example of this is when sea otters were nearly hunted to extinction which caused sea urchins to flourish which caused the death of coral and coastal environments which started to affect the larger things that depended on those environments.

My point is that any change to the careful balance can have non-linear effects.

I think we're coming at this from different directions. The OP I responded to originally said: "Warming will kill off most of the systems these animals depend on within 30 years." which isn't what you're talking about. A top-down extinction looks like whaling in the 1800s and we already had that. Now they're on the mend.

Right, this is my point. Looking at krill is looking at one PIECE of the stack. Other things support and interact with that stack. The stack is the whale. The point is that it doesn’t matter if this one single piece of the stack can evolve, it’s not nearly enough.

Appreciate the responses here. However, I feel like these responses are just to show us how much you know about the product and aren't actually helpful.

Instead, why don't you and Anthropic be more open about changes to these tools rather than waiting for users to complain, then investigating things after the fact that you should have investigated in the first place, and then posting on social media about all the cool tech details?

My company is tens of thousands strong. The amount of churn in Claude Code is a major issue and causing real awareness of the lack of stability and lack of customer support Anthropic provides.

And Claude Code is actually becoming a prototypical example of the dangers of vibe coded products and the burdens they place.

According to Google Gemini, there are over 16,000 master sergeants. Might as well be some random, especially when it's literally the president himself, cabinet members, congress, and other cronies directly doing the same and even worse things.

Fine with me. Not the type of jobs I want anyway.

Apple has had sharp edges for like 15 years now on their MacBooks.

Musk passing around his debt from purchasing Twitter.

Government subsidized purchase of a private company. Fantastic. All funded by the taxpayer to send rockets to a dead planet and to burn up all the energy on our alive but suffering planet.

Point to any government subsidies for SpaceX - or do you think your salary is a subsidy and everything you do at work is worthless to your employer?

SpaceX has paid for contracts to deliver services to the government and those services have saved the government billions of dollars compared to the alternative.

You're claiming that SpaceX has not received governmnent subsidies, grants, and contracts?

> those services have saved the government billions of dollars compared to the alternative

Source? All I can find is some guy saying it.

And it doesn't really matter what they've saved. It doesn't excuse conflicts of interest.

A top government employee in the previous regime. Not some guy. You yourself can check and see that launch pricing for the government is cheaper from everyone apart from Boeing these days.

Turns out capping costs help. (See SLS) (See Europa Clipper)

Contracts aren't subsidies and you know that. It's straight up dishonesty to mix them up.

McDonald's and Burger King are government contractors

I said "government subsidized" and then later expanded out to subsidies, grants, and contracts. You know what I meant. There isn't dishonesty remotely anywhere.

And the point of conflict of interest still stands and is unargued while we still argue the meaning of "government subsidized".