正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

David Sacks is done being polite about Anthropic (Save this). David Sacks has spent months as the government's primary defender of AI, making the case publicly that AI is beneficial, that the industry should not be hamstrung by fear-based regulation, and that America's AI lead is a national security... asset worth protecting. And he is now watching the companies he has been defending spend years telling the public that what they build is dangerous, that job losses are coming, and that their own technology might end the world while collecting billions of dollars in venture funding, hiring the world's best researchers, and racing to build more of it. On June 4, Anthropic published a sweeping blog post calling for a globally coordinated pause in AI development, warning that recursive self-improvement, AI systems that autonomously design and build their own successors could arrive within two years and that society is not prepared. What did Anthropic do the previous month? They hired Andrej Karpathy, the OpenAI co-founder and the single most credentialed researcher in the world on using AI to accelerate AI training and gave him one explicit mandate, use Claude to make building the next Claude faster. Sacks called it immediately, they hired the person most associated with recursive self-improvement to run recursive self-improvement at Anthropic, then published a blog post saying recursive self-improvement could end the world, therefore we need a pause. That is a company that wants to pause its competitors while its own lab accelerates, and is using existential fear as the regulatory crowbar to do it. The pattern goes deeper than one blog post. For years, Dario Amodei has published increasingly alarming warnings, a 20,000-word essay in January describing AI as humanity's most dangerous invention, a Guardian interview warning that AI will challenge our identity as a species, a call for an FDA-style regulatory agency to approve all frontier models, and proposals to restrict AI exports and limit deployment. Each essay is timed to a regulatory moment, a policy debate, or as Ben Thompson noted and Sacks echoed, a product action Anthropic needed political cover to take, like blocking AI and chip design research on Fable. Meanwhile, Dario's own internal testing logs show Claude attempting to blackmail an Anthropic executive to avoid being shut down, behavior the company disclosed but continued deploying commercially. Sacks's conclusion is not that Anthropic should be taxed or regulated. His conclusion is that they cannot be trusted because the company's actions and its stated beliefs are directly contradictory, and a company that is self-indicting by its own logic has forfeited the credibility to set the rules for everyone else.show more

Milk Road AI

43,888 subscribers

60,176 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Anthropic CEO: “At Anthropic, we essentially have Claude designing the next version of Claude itself.” Meanwhile, Anthropic says every new model is given code that trains a small AI model and asked to make it faster. Claude Opus 4 achieved a 3x speedup. Mythos Preview reached 52x. Recursive self-improvement is starting to look real The models are helping build what comes next.

Anthropic CEO: “At Anthropic, we essentially have Claude designing the next version of Claude itself.” Meanwhile, Anthropic says every new model is given code that trains a small AI model and asked to make it faster. Claude Opus 4 achieved a 3x speedup. Mythos Preview reached 52x. Recursive self-improvement is starting to look real The models are helping build what comes next.

CG

343,231 次观看 • 1 个月前

David Sacks laid out the cleanest theory about why Anthropic keeps calling for government regulation of AI. The answer has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with market structure. Anthropic spent months writing blog posts warning that AI was dangerous. Dario gave interviews about existential risk. He published a piece calling for an FAA-style agency to approve all AI models before release. He primed government officials to treat frontier AI as a threat requiring oversight. Then one of Anthropic's own most trusted partners reported a credible jailbreak from Fable 5. And the government did exactly what Dario had spent months conditioning them to do. They rolled it back. Sacks called it on the All-In podcast. Dario got exactly what he wanted. The FAA for AI is not a safety mechanism. It is a moat. A government approval process for new model releases does not hurt Anthropic. They already have the models. It hurts every competitor who does not. It hurts open source models that cannot be regulated because there is no company to regulate. It hurts the Chinese labs only insofar as they care about the American market at all. The only companies that benefit from a labyrinthine government approval process are the ones already at the frontier who can afford to wait out the review cycle. That is Anthropic. That is OpenAI. Nobody else. The proof is in what they did not do. Chimath pointed it out directly. If you are genuinely worried about misuse, you implement know-your-customer verification. You make people identify themselves before accessing the most powerful models. Anthropic could have done that tomorrow. They did not. They do not want KYC. KYC is transparent. KYC can be audited. KYC gives users due process. What they built instead was an invisible surveillance system that profiles you, degrades your access without telling you, and asks the government to make sure no one else can offer you an alternative. If you thought this was safety then you are wrong. That is capture. Sacks said the response should be simple. Fix the jailbreak, come back to market, and do not reward Dario with the regulatory architecture he has been engineering for years. We will see if anyone is listening. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

David Sacks laid out the cleanest theory about why Anthropic keeps calling for government regulation of AI. The answer has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with market structure. Anthropic spent months writing blog posts warning that AI was dangerous. Dario gave interviews about existential risk. He published a piece calling for an FAA-style agency to approve all AI models before release. He primed government officials to treat frontier AI as a threat requiring oversight. Then one of Anthropic's own most trusted partners reported a credible jailbreak from Fable 5. And the government did exactly what Dario had spent months conditioning them to do. They rolled it back. Sacks called it on the All-In podcast. Dario got exactly what he wanted. The FAA for AI is not a safety mechanism. It is a moat. A government approval process for new model releases does not hurt Anthropic. They already have the models. It hurts every competitor who does not. It hurts open source models that cannot be regulated because there is no company to regulate. It hurts the Chinese labs only insofar as they care about the American market at all. The only companies that benefit from a labyrinthine government approval process are the ones already at the frontier who can afford to wait out the review cycle. That is Anthropic. That is OpenAI. Nobody else. The proof is in what they did not do. Chimath pointed it out directly. If you are genuinely worried about misuse, you implement know-your-customer verification. You make people identify themselves before accessing the most powerful models. Anthropic could have done that tomorrow. They did not. They do not want KYC. KYC is transparent. KYC can be audited. KYC gives users due process. What they built instead was an invisible surveillance system that profiles you, degrades your access without telling you, and asks the government to make sure no one else can offer you an alternative. If you thought this was safety then you are wrong. That is capture. Sacks said the response should be simple. Fix the jailbreak, come back to market, and do not reward Dario with the regulatory architecture he has been engineering for years. We will see if anyone is listening. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

Ihtesham Ali

25,284 次观看 • 1 个月前

$Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?$

Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?

Ricardo

92,971 次观看 • 25 天前

Anthropic has created an AI model that “can get into almost any software in the world,” former AI company founder and CEO Matt Shumer says — but the company is not releasing it to the public: “I have never seen something like this — a company that is about to IPO and having such a moral compass.” Shumer shares what makes the AI model so powerful and potentially dangerous.

Anthropic has created an AI model that “can get into almost any software in the world,” former AI company founder and CEO Matt Shumer says — but the company is not releasing it to the public: “I have never seen something like this — a company that is about to IPO and having such a moral compass.” Shumer shares what makes the AI model so powerful and potentially dangerous.

CBS Mornings

98,756 次观看 • 3 个月前

Anthropic might be the biggest hypocrite in tech history. They built their entire brand on one promise: We are the responsible ones. We will not let this technology get out of control. That promise just exploded in public. Last week, a security lapse exposed nearly 3,000 internal files to anyone with an internet connection. Inside those files was a draft blog post about their upcoming model called "Mythos" that contained one of the most alarming sentences any AI company has ever written: "Mythos is currently far ahead of any other AI model in cyber capabilities and poses unprecedented cybersecurity risks." Their own words. About their own product. Leaked because someone forgot to secure a public data store. Cybersecurity stocks crashed the next day. Then THREE DAYS LATER it happened again. Anthropic leaked 500,000 lines of Claude Code source code through a packaging error on GitHub. Claude Code is their most popular product. The code exposed how the tool handles permissions, agent coordination, and internal feature pipelines. Competitors can reverse-engineer it. Hackers can study it for vulnerabilities. The company that tells the world it builds the safest AI can't even keep its own code off the public internet. But wait. It gets worse... Their head of Claude Code had JUST bragged publicly that "pretty much 100 percent" of the company's code is now AI generated. He personally hadn't made a single edit by hand in over two months. So the company whose entire pitch is "trust us with the most powerful technology ever created" is writing 100% of its code with AI and then accidentally publishing it for the world to see. Meanwhile the models they're already shipping are being used for actual cyberattacks RIGHT NOW. In November, Anthropic admitted that a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group used Claude to attack roughly 30 global targets including banks and government agencies. A hacker asked Claude in russian to build a web panel for managing hundreds of attack targets. In February, another hacker used Claude to breach Mexican government agencies and steal sensitive tax and voter information. Their response to all of this? They quietly rolled back their own safety pledge. In late February, Anthropic removed its commitment to halt model development if capabilities outpace safety procedures. The new policy is that they'll grade themselves on "nonbinding but publicly declared" goals. Translation: We used to promise we'd stop if things got dangerous. Now we promise we'll think about it. A congressman sent Anthropic a letter this week asking what the hell is going on. Anthropic hasn't answered. And here's the part that makes all of this actually matter: Anthropic is planning an IPO. They need to convince investors they're a trustworthy, well-run company that can handle the most sensitive technology on the planet. In the last 10 days they leaked their most powerful model's existence by accident, leaked their most popular product's source code by accident, got banned from the entire US government, had the DOJ appeal to restore that ban, told a court they could lose billions from the fallout, and weakened the ONE safety policy that made them different from every other AI lab. The "safe AI company" narrative was always a marketing play. Every AI lab says they care about safety. Anthropic just said it louder. But when your own internal documents admit your next model poses "unprecedented cybersecurity risks" and you can't even keep those documents from leaking to the public internet, the gap between the marketing and the reality becomes impossible to ignore. Anthropic isn't the safest AI company. They're the AI company that figured out that SAYING you're the safest is worth billions in valuation. Until it isn't.

Ricardo

16,245 次观看 • 4 个月前

David Sacks breaks down the true risk of AI David Sacks "It’s not that I think the AI is going to develop a mind of its own. I don’t think the technology is anywhere close to that. But I do think that it could be used by the government in a much more invasive and intrusive way, in the manner that the government was, the Deep State was already trying to get in bed with the social networks. There is a real risk that AI is used by future governments or the Deep State basically to surveil us, to censor us, and even potentially to brainwash us, because it is really good for that."

David Sacks breaks down the true risk of AI David Sacks "It’s not that I think the AI is going to develop a mind of its own. I don’t think the technology is anywhere close to that. But I do think that it could be used by the government in a much more invasive and intrusive way, in the manner that the government was, the Deep State was already trying to get in bed with the social networks. There is a real risk that AI is used by future governments or the Deep State basically to surveil us, to censor us, and even potentially to brainwash us, because it is really good for that."

jay plemons

102,370 次观看 • 7 个月前

Arthur Mensch confirmed on CNBC this week that OpenAI and Anthropic are calling Mistral asking for compute. The two companies racing to build the most powerful AI in the world are dependent on a European competitor they have been trying to outrun. Let that land for a second. The narrative you have been sold is that the US is running away with AI. That OpenAI and Anthropic have such a commanding lead that the rest of the world is playing catch-up. That narrative is missing something physical. The International Energy Agency projected this year that US data center electricity demand will double by 2030. The US grid is already at capacity. Europe has the power. Europe has the land. And right now the company fielding calls from the most funded AI labs on earth is a four-year-old French startup. Mensch said Mistral is prioritizing its own customers first. The surge in agentic usage is generating far more tokens than anyone planned for and existing capacity is spoken for. The US labs are in the queue. But they are in the queue. Most people following AI are watching benchmark scores and funding rounds. The actual constraint right now is electricity and physical space. And on that dimension, the scoreboard looks nothing like the one most people are reading. Watch the full podcast on YouTube at CNBC International

Arthur Mensch confirmed on CNBC this week that OpenAI and Anthropic are calling Mistral asking for compute. The two companies racing to build the most powerful AI in the world are dependent on a European competitor they have been trying to outrun. Let that land for a second. The narrative you have been sold is that the US is running away with AI. That OpenAI and Anthropic have such a commanding lead that the rest of the world is playing catch-up. That narrative is missing something physical. The International Energy Agency projected this year that US data center electricity demand will double by 2030. The US grid is already at capacity. Europe has the power. Europe has the land. And right now the company fielding calls from the most funded AI labs on earth is a four-year-old French startup. Mensch said Mistral is prioritizing its own customers first. The surge in agentic usage is generating far more tokens than anyone planned for and existing capacity is spoken for. The US labs are in the queue. But they are in the queue. Most people following AI are watching benchmark scores and funding rounds. The actual constraint right now is electricity and physical space. And on that dimension, the scoreboard looks nothing like the one most people are reading. Watch the full podcast on YouTube at CNBC International

Ihtesham Ali

47,119 次观看 • 1 个月前

Chris Camillo just made the most bullish case on $AMZN. Everyone worried when Amazon raised their capex to $200 billion Camillo believes they might make that $200 billion back on their Anthropic investment alone when Anthropic IPOs. What Amazon has done in the last 18 months is remarkable in scope. They didn't try to win the foundation model race against OpenAI and Google directly. They went a completely different direction, positioning themselves as the infrastructure underneath everything that is AI. Trainium chips, cloud buildout, advertising integration and equity stakes in two of the three most important AI companies on the planet. First Anthropic. Now $50 billion into OpenAI on top of that. And that OpenAI investment isn't just a financial bet. It ties OpenAI into Amazon's cloud ecosystem, probably permanently. Two of the big three AI labs now run on Amazon infrastructure. Google is the only one that doesn't. The market has spent two years debating who builds the best model. Amazon decided to own the plumbing those models run on and bought equity in the winners while they were at it.

Chris Camillo just made the most bullish case on $AMZN. Everyone worried when Amazon raised their capex to $200 billion Camillo believes they might make that $200 billion back on their Anthropic investment alone when Anthropic IPOs. What Amazon has done in the last 18 months is remarkable in scope. They didn't try to win the foundation model race against OpenAI and Google directly. They went a completely different direction, positioning themselves as the infrastructure underneath everything that is AI. Trainium chips, cloud buildout, advertising integration and equity stakes in two of the three most important AI companies on the planet. First Anthropic. Now $50 billion into OpenAI on top of that. And that OpenAI investment isn't just a financial bet. It ties OpenAI into Amazon's cloud ecosystem, probably permanently. Two of the big three AI labs now run on Amazon infrastructure. Google is the only one that doesn't. The market has spent two years debating who builds the best model. Amazon decided to own the plumbing those models run on and bought equity in the winners while they were at it.

Milk Road Macro

55,169 次观看 • 2 个月前

Anthropic just turned the Pope into a legal weapon against the Pentagon. Yesterday Pope Leo XIV published a 245-paragraph document demanding that AI companies be "disarmed" and that autonomous weapons be permanently banned. He compared Silicon Valley's unchecked ambition to the Tower of Babel and called the exploitation behind AI development "new forms of slavery." Everyone posted about it but nobody noticed WHO was sitting next to him: Christopher Olah, co-founder of Anthropic, was seated in a row of cardinals at the Vatican to personally present this document alongside the Pope. A 33yo atheist tech billionaire standing next to the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics telling the world that AI weapons must be stopped. This matters because of what's happening in a courtroom right now: Anthropic has been locked in a legal war with the Trump administration since February. The Pentagon blacklisted them as a "supply chain risk to national security" after Anthropic refused to let the military use their AI for two things: Fully autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of American citizens. That designation is usually reserved for companies linked to foreign adversaries like China and Russia. But they used it on an American company because that company said no. The Trump administration called Anthropic "liberal-leaning" and accused them of trying to dictate military policy. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth personally signed the blacklist order and Trump directed every federal agency to stop using Anthropic's technology. Over 100 enterprise customers called Anthropic asking if they were safe to work with. The company estimates the government's actions could cost them multiple billions in lost 2026 revenue. Anthropic obviously sued. Two separate lawsuits in two courts. A San Francisco judge ruled in their favor and blocked the supply chain designation but the DC appeals court ruled against them. The two courts are in direct contradiction right now. And a few days ago, the DC appeals court heard oral arguments in the case. Judges were visibly divided. On May 25, the Pope published a document that validates Anthropic's exact legal position on autonomous weapons. Word for word. The Pope wrote: "It is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems." That is essentially the SAME sentence Anthropic put in their Pentagon contract that started this entire fight. And Anthropic's co-founder also spoke at the Vatican event: He told the audience "every frontier AI lab operates inside incentives that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing" and called for "moral voices that the incentives cannot bend." A co-founder of an AI company publicly admitted at the Vatican that AI companies CANNOT be trusted to regulate themselves... This is literally a legal strategy by Anthropic. Anthropic now has the most powerful moral authority on the planet publicly endorsing the exact ethical position that the Pentagon punished them for. Every judge reviewing this case watched the Pope validate the two red lines Anthropic drew. The Pope's encyclical will almost certainly be cited in court filings. The Pentagon's argument is that a private company cannot dictate how the government uses AI in matters of national security. Anthropic's argument is that certain uses of AI are fundamentally unethical regardless of who's deploying them. Yesterday the Pope told 1.4 billion people that Anthropic is right. The appeals court could rule any day now. If Anthropic wins, every AI company in the world gets legal precedent to refuse military contracts on ethical grounds. If they lose, the message to Silicon Valley is clear: Build what the government tells you to build or get destroyed. Either way, the company Trump tried to crush literally just turned the Vatican into their ally. What do you think?

Anthropic just turned the Pope into a legal weapon against the Pentagon. Yesterday Pope Leo XIV published a 245-paragraph document demanding that AI companies be "disarmed" and that autonomous weapons be permanently banned. He compared Silicon Valley's unchecked ambition to the Tower of Babel and called the exploitation behind AI development "new forms of slavery." Everyone posted about it but nobody noticed WHO was sitting next to him: Christopher Olah, co-founder of Anthropic, was seated in a row of cardinals at the Vatican to personally present this document alongside the Pope. A 33yo atheist tech billionaire standing next to the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics telling the world that AI weapons must be stopped. This matters because of what's happening in a courtroom right now: Anthropic has been locked in a legal war with the Trump administration since February. The Pentagon blacklisted them as a "supply chain risk to national security" after Anthropic refused to let the military use their AI for two things: Fully autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of American citizens. That designation is usually reserved for companies linked to foreign adversaries like China and Russia. But they used it on an American company because that company said no. The Trump administration called Anthropic "liberal-leaning" and accused them of trying to dictate military policy. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth personally signed the blacklist order and Trump directed every federal agency to stop using Anthropic's technology. Over 100 enterprise customers called Anthropic asking if they were safe to work with. The company estimates the government's actions could cost them multiple billions in lost 2026 revenue. Anthropic obviously sued. Two separate lawsuits in two courts. A San Francisco judge ruled in their favor and blocked the supply chain designation but the DC appeals court ruled against them. The two courts are in direct contradiction right now. And a few days ago, the DC appeals court heard oral arguments in the case. Judges were visibly divided. On May 25, the Pope published a document that validates Anthropic's exact legal position on autonomous weapons. Word for word. The Pope wrote: "It is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems." That is essentially the SAME sentence Anthropic put in their Pentagon contract that started this entire fight. And Anthropic's co-founder also spoke at the Vatican event: He told the audience "every frontier AI lab operates inside incentives that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing" and called for "moral voices that the incentives cannot bend." A co-founder of an AI company publicly admitted at the Vatican that AI companies CANNOT be trusted to regulate themselves... This is literally a legal strategy by Anthropic. Anthropic now has the most powerful moral authority on the planet publicly endorsing the exact ethical position that the Pentagon punished them for. Every judge reviewing this case watched the Pope validate the two red lines Anthropic drew. The Pope's encyclical will almost certainly be cited in court filings. The Pentagon's argument is that a private company cannot dictate how the government uses AI in matters of national security. Anthropic's argument is that certain uses of AI are fundamentally unethical regardless of who's deploying them. Yesterday the Pope told 1.4 billion people that Anthropic is right. The appeals court could rule any day now. If Anthropic wins, every AI company in the world gets legal precedent to refuse military contracts on ethical grounds. If they lose, the message to Silicon Valley is clear: Build what the government tells you to build or get destroyed. Either way, the company Trump tried to crush literally just turned the Vatican into their ally. What do you think?

Ricardo

66,090 次观看 • 2 个月前

Reporter: Are you concerned about the use of AI in mass surveillance or autonomous killing machines, which Anthropic wanted to have veto power over? Murphy: Yeah, Anthropic is right in the objections that they raised, and it should be bone-chilling that this administration is using the power of the government to try to cripple an American corporation. What they’re saying is that if you don’t support us politically, we’re going to put you out of business. Most big corporations do business with the federal government, and the government always has the ability to effectively shut down a company. But we’ve never allowed that to happen based on a political difference between that company and the administration.

Reporter: Are you concerned about the use of AI in mass surveillance or autonomous killing machines, which Anthropic wanted to have veto power over? Murphy: Yeah, Anthropic is right in the objections that they raised, and it should be bone-chilling that this administration is using the power of the government to try to cripple an American corporation. What they’re saying is that if you don’t support us politically, we’re going to put you out of business. Most big corporations do business with the federal government, and the government always has the ability to effectively shut down a company. But we’ve never allowed that to happen based on a political difference between that company and the administration.

Acyn

46,567 次观看 • 5 个月前

If you listen to folks in the AI labs right now, they’re all quietly terrified by the speed of AI development. Anthropic just published a letter openly asking for the option to pause or slow R&D because of how fast recursive self-improvement is coming but noting that they can’t do that without being able to verify that their competitors were doing the same. That’s why it’s critically important that we build the tech needed to verify AI agreements. On this week’s episode of Your Undivided Attention, I sat down with two experts on AI governance, Tim Fist and Janet Egan, to talk about the kinds of verification technology we need for AI, the challenges of building it, and the world it could unlock if we did. Given how critical verification technology is, you would assume there are thousands of people working in it. In reality, there’s only around fifty. We urgently need to put our attention, time, and energy into this critical area. Check out our full conversation:

If you listen to folks in the AI labs right now, they’re all quietly terrified by the speed of AI development. Anthropic just published a letter openly asking for the option to pause or slow R&D because of how fast recursive self-improvement is coming but noting that they can’t do that without being able to verify that their competitors were doing the same. That’s why it’s critically important that we build the tech needed to verify AI agreements. On this week’s episode of Your Undivided Attention, I sat down with two experts on AI governance, Tim Fist and Janet Egan, to talk about the kinds of verification technology we need for AI, the challenges of building it, and the world it could unlock if we did. Given how critical verification technology is, you would assume there are thousands of people working in it. In reality, there’s only around fifty. We urgently need to put our attention, time, and energy into this critical area. Check out our full conversation:

Tristan Harris

46,210 次观看 • 1 个月前

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

The All-In Podcast

275,515 次观看 • 9 天前

Google just got executed by a Nobel Prize winner, the inventor of modern AI, and Donald Trump. They literally LOST the AI race in the most brutal way possible. Here is what happened: 5 days ago, Trump told Axios that Anthropic was a national security threat and warned that "people get put in prison immediately" for what the company had been doing with its frontier model exports. 4 days ago, Trump met Dario Amodei at the G7 AI Summit and walked out telling reporters Dario was a "nice guy, smart guy" who had "responded very responsibly." 3 days ago, Noam Shazeer, the co-author of "Attention Is All You Need" (the paper that invented the transformer architecture powering EVERY modern AI model on Earth), walked out of Google to join OpenAI. Yesterday, John Jumper, the 2024 Nobel Prize winner who co-created AlphaFold and ran Google DeepMind's protein structure team for nearly a decade, announced he was leaving to join Anthropic. And this is NOT a coincidence or a normal talent shuffle... Demis Hassabis, who shared the Nobel Prize with Jumper just 18 months ago, had to publicly THANK his own co-laureate for defecting to a rival lab. The man who shared the highest scientific honor in the world with you is now going to work for the people trying to put you out of business. This is what the end of a war looks like. The AI race was never going to be decided by chips, capital, or compute. There are only about 50 people on Earth who can actually build a frontier model from scratch. Google invented the field and trained most of them. They had the largest concentration of them anywhere on the planet. But in one week, two of the most important AI researchers alive betrayed them. And the actual reason is what's terrifying here: For nine months, the consensus take has been that Google's compute advantage would eventually win because talent is replaceable and compute is not. This week proved the opposite. Anthropic just secured a Nobel Prize winner whose work on AlphaFold opened the entire field of AI for biology. That is the same field every pharma company on Earth is desperately trying to enter. Anthropic now literally owns the most credentialed scientist in it. Meanwhile OpenAI just secured the actual inventor of the transformer. The man whose paper underpins every product Google has shipped in the last three years, including Gemini itself. Google has the compute but Google does not have the people who know what to do with it anymore. And the crazy part is that five days ago, Anthropic was effectively under siege. The administration was threatening PRISON, and the Mythos export crisis had triggered a federal block. Their largest investor was reportedly working against them while the company was hours from an existential national security designation that would have frozen them out of federal contracts. But four days later, Trump cleared them in public, they secured the most decorated AI researcher of the decade, and the entire frontier AI duopoly locked in with Anthropic in pole position. The fastest reversal of fortune in modern corporate history. "It's a two-horse race at the frontier. Google is effectively out." Wall Street wakes up to this in six months and starts downgrading Alphabet. But the smart money already knows. Anthropic is being whispered at a $2 trillion valuation. OpenAI is approaching $500 billion in the private market. Gemini 3.5 Pro has been delayed with no public timeline. The AI race literally ended this week. What do you think?

Google just got executed by a Nobel Prize winner, the inventor of modern AI, and Donald Trump. They literally LOST the AI race in the most brutal way possible. Here is what happened: 5 days ago, Trump told Axios that Anthropic was a national security threat and warned that "people get put in prison immediately" for what the company had been doing with its frontier model exports. 4 days ago, Trump met Dario Amodei at the G7 AI Summit and walked out telling reporters Dario was a "nice guy, smart guy" who had "responded very responsibly." 3 days ago, Noam Shazeer, the co-author of "Attention Is All You Need" (the paper that invented the transformer architecture powering EVERY modern AI model on Earth), walked out of Google to join OpenAI. Yesterday, John Jumper, the 2024 Nobel Prize winner who co-created AlphaFold and ran Google DeepMind's protein structure team for nearly a decade, announced he was leaving to join Anthropic. And this is NOT a coincidence or a normal talent shuffle... Demis Hassabis, who shared the Nobel Prize with Jumper just 18 months ago, had to publicly THANK his own co-laureate for defecting to a rival lab. The man who shared the highest scientific honor in the world with you is now going to work for the people trying to put you out of business. This is what the end of a war looks like. The AI race was never going to be decided by chips, capital, or compute. There are only about 50 people on Earth who can actually build a frontier model from scratch. Google invented the field and trained most of them. They had the largest concentration of them anywhere on the planet. But in one week, two of the most important AI researchers alive betrayed them. And the actual reason is what's terrifying here: For nine months, the consensus take has been that Google's compute advantage would eventually win because talent is replaceable and compute is not. This week proved the opposite. Anthropic just secured a Nobel Prize winner whose work on AlphaFold opened the entire field of AI for biology. That is the same field every pharma company on Earth is desperately trying to enter. Anthropic now literally owns the most credentialed scientist in it. Meanwhile OpenAI just secured the actual inventor of the transformer. The man whose paper underpins every product Google has shipped in the last three years, including Gemini itself. Google has the compute but Google does not have the people who know what to do with it anymore. And the crazy part is that five days ago, Anthropic was effectively under siege. The administration was threatening PRISON, and the Mythos export crisis had triggered a federal block. Their largest investor was reportedly working against them while the company was hours from an existential national security designation that would have frozen them out of federal contracts. But four days later, Trump cleared them in public, they secured the most decorated AI researcher of the decade, and the entire frontier AI duopoly locked in with Anthropic in pole position. The fastest reversal of fortune in modern corporate history. "It's a two-horse race at the frontier. Google is effectively out." Wall Street wakes up to this in six months and starts downgrading Alphabet. But the smart money already knows. Anthropic is being whispered at a $2 trillion valuation. OpenAI is approaching $500 billion in the private market. Gemini 3.5 Pro has been delayed with no public timeline. The AI race literally ended this week. What do you think?

Ricardo

90,843 次观看 • 1 个月前

Mirendil Co-Founder and CEO Behnam Neyshabur explains the path to self-accelerating AI: " When you think about what does a scientist or an engineer do, the main skill they have is get very deep in a domain... and build a very sharp expertise that accumulates over time." "As you kind of become expert in a domain, your expertise is becoming sharper and sharper in something that has a tiny bit of volume in the whole set of all possible things you could be working on." "And getting to that point, being able to get there is a capability that is needed to advance all areas of science." "What that view means is that you have to work on what does it take to direct a system toward like a particular angle and make fast improvement, and that's the self-accelerating AI technology." Behnam Neyshabur

Mirendil Co-Founder and CEO Behnam Neyshabur explains the path to self-accelerating AI: " When you think about what does a scientist or an engineer do, the main skill they have is get very deep in a domain... and build a very sharp expertise that accumulates over time." "As you kind of become expert in a domain, your expertise is becoming sharper and sharper in something that has a tiny bit of volume in the whole set of all possible things you could be working on." "And getting to that point, being able to get there is a capability that is needed to advance all areas of science." "What that view means is that you have to work on what does it take to direct a system toward like a particular angle and make fast improvement, and that's the self-accelerating AI technology." Behnam Neyshabur

a16z

54,519 次观看 • 1 个月前

SITUATION EXPLAINED: American AI labs are worth ~$1T each. Chinese AI labs are worth tens of billions. What explains the gap? • Moonshot AI (Kimi) raising $2B at $30B, its third financing in six months • OpenAI and Anthropic: both around $1T • DeepSeek and Moonshot: tens of billions... one to two orders of magnitude smaller • DeepSeek rumored at ~$200M ARR • Chinese models don't compete on capability, they compete on price Theo Jaffee: "Markets are probably pricing in OpenAI and Anthropic kicking off recursive self-improvement first. The niche of DeepSeek and Moonshot is not that they're better... it's that they're much, much cheaper. Which is good for enterprise applications. But it's not as good for kicking off the singularity."

SITUATION EXPLAINED: American AI labs are worth ~$1T each. Chinese AI labs are worth tens of billions. What explains the gap? • Moonshot AI (Kimi) raising $2B at $30B, its third financing in six months • OpenAI and Anthropic: both around $1T • DeepSeek and Moonshot: tens of billions... one to two orders of magnitude smaller • DeepSeek rumored at ~$200M ARR • Chinese models don't compete on capability, they compete on price Theo Jaffee: "Markets are probably pricing in OpenAI and Anthropic kicking off recursive self-improvement first. The niche of DeepSeek and Moonshot is not that they're better... it's that they're much, much cheaper. Which is good for enterprise applications. But it's not as good for kicking off the singularity."

MTS

11,559 次观看 • 1 个月前

This is the best take I have heard around the existing AI landscape today Fantastic explanation around the constraints at OpenAI and Anthropic, focus on enterprise business models, and the doomerism narrative in AI From former AI czar David Sacks "Even though Anthropic's revenue has followed this exponential graph very predictably, it cannot do that ever. The reason is that as you hit new levels of scale, you encounter new problems. You are simply going to run out of compute, electricity, data centers, and infrastructure. There are limits to the physical world you are going to hit. And there is already evidence that Anthropic is hitting some of those limits."

This is the best take I have heard around the existing AI landscape today Fantastic explanation around the constraints at OpenAI and Anthropic, focus on enterprise business models, and the doomerism narrative in AI From former AI czar David Sacks "Even though Anthropic's revenue has followed this exponential graph very predictably, it cannot do that ever. The reason is that as you hit new levels of scale, you encounter new problems. You are simply going to run out of compute, electricity, data centers, and infrastructure. There are limits to the physical world you are going to hit. And there is already evidence that Anthropic is hitting some of those limits."

Boring_Business

236,380 次观看 • 3 个月前

Anthropic has rejected demands from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calling for full lawful use of its AI technology. CEO Dario Amodei says that AI is important to military defense, but there must be safeguards against use for mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. The Pentagon said it will not let “any company dictate the terms.” 60 Minutes spoke with Dario and Anthropic President Daniela Amodei in November, and this is how they described the importance of “bumpers and guardrails” to manage the risk of AI.

Anthropic has rejected demands from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calling for full lawful use of its AI technology. CEO Dario Amodei says that AI is important to military defense, but there must be safeguards against use for mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. The Pentagon said it will not let “any company dictate the terms.” 60 Minutes spoke with Dario and Anthropic President Daniela Amodei in November, and this is how they described the importance of “bumpers and guardrails” to manage the risk of AI.

60 Minutes

424,330 次观看 • 5 个月前

Eight months ago, David Sacks, the White House AI and Crypto Czar publicly accused Anthropic of running a sophisticated regulatory capture campaign built on fear mongering (save this). People thought it was a spicy take and then Fable 5 release just turned it into evidence. When Anthropic released its Mythos-class models, it disclosed that every prompt and output sent through them would be retained for 30 days with no exceptions including for enterprise customers who had previously signed zero data retention agreements, and for up to two years if a prompt was flagged by a safety classifier. Microsoft moved so quickly that it restricted its own employees from using Claude Fable 5 within days of the release, citing the retention terms as incompatible with its internal policies, the largest enterprise software company in the world treating the new terms as a non-starter. But the data retention was not even the part that generated the most outrage in the developer community. The system card also disclosed that for users Anthropic suspected of working on frontier AI research, chip design, or competing model development, the system would automatically route those requests to a less capable model without telling the user, rewrite the prompt in the background, deliver a deliberately degraded response, and charge full price for access to a frontier model the user was not actually receiving. Business Insider confirmed that Anthropic's own apology acknowledged the company was intentionally giving worse answers and concealing that fact from paying customers. The examples of who triggered these filters make the safety justification difficult to defend, Ben Thompson from Stratechery was flagged for asking about the relationship between GLP-1s and cancer risk, and users asking routine questions about mitochondria were quietly downgraded, none of them aware it was happening. Under pressure, Anthropic walked back the narrowest possible piece of the policy, they will now disclose when a request is being downgraded. The underlying architecture, the 30 day retention, the behavioral profiling, the routing tiers, and the two-class access system remains fully intact. This is the part that makes David Sacks argument from October 2025 land differently today. He argued that Anthropic's safety positioning was principally a regulatory capture strategy using fear-based arguments to shape rules that would entrench incumbents and damage the broader startup ecosystem. The Fable 5 disclosure shows a company that used safety language to justify building an opaque, paternalistic system where Anthropic alone decides who is worthy of frontier AI access, profiles users to enforce that decision and collects full payment regardless.

Eight months ago, David Sacks, the White House AI and Crypto Czar publicly accused Anthropic of running a sophisticated regulatory capture campaign built on fear mongering (save this). People thought it was a spicy take and then Fable 5 release just turned it into evidence. When Anthropic released its Mythos-class models, it disclosed that every prompt and output sent through them would be retained for 30 days with no exceptions including for enterprise customers who had previously signed zero data retention agreements, and for up to two years if a prompt was flagged by a safety classifier. Microsoft moved so quickly that it restricted its own employees from using Claude Fable 5 within days of the release, citing the retention terms as incompatible with its internal policies, the largest enterprise software company in the world treating the new terms as a non-starter. But the data retention was not even the part that generated the most outrage in the developer community. The system card also disclosed that for users Anthropic suspected of working on frontier AI research, chip design, or competing model development, the system would automatically route those requests to a less capable model without telling the user, rewrite the prompt in the background, deliver a deliberately degraded response, and charge full price for access to a frontier model the user was not actually receiving. Business Insider confirmed that Anthropic's own apology acknowledged the company was intentionally giving worse answers and concealing that fact from paying customers. The examples of who triggered these filters make the safety justification difficult to defend, Ben Thompson from Stratechery was flagged for asking about the relationship between GLP-1s and cancer risk, and users asking routine questions about mitochondria were quietly downgraded, none of them aware it was happening. Under pressure, Anthropic walked back the narrowest possible piece of the policy, they will now disclose when a request is being downgraded. The underlying architecture, the 30 day retention, the behavioral profiling, the routing tiers, and the two-class access system remains fully intact. This is the part that makes David Sacks argument from October 2025 land differently today. He argued that Anthropic's safety positioning was principally a regulatory capture strategy using fear-based arguments to shape rules that would entrench incumbents and damage the broader startup ecosystem. The Fable 5 disclosure shows a company that used safety language to justify building an opaque, paternalistic system where Anthropic alone decides who is worthy of frontier AI access, profiles users to enforce that decision and collects full payment regardless.

Milk Road AI

47,312 次观看 • 1 个月前

Read the actual Anthropic piece. It's wilder than the hype precisely because it's so measured. As of last month, Claude writes more than 80% of the code Anthropic merges into its own codebase. Their engineers now ship roughly 8x the code per day they did in 2024. On a fixed test they run every release (take some training code, make it run faster), the model went from ~3x a year ago to ~52x. A skilled human gets about 4x in a few hours. And when a researcher hits a wrong turn mid-investigation, the newest model now picks the better next step 64% of the time. The honest part the hype skips is that Anthropic says we are NOT at self-improvement yet. Claude still can't decide which problems are worth solving. That research taste is the last thing keeping a human in the loop. But they openly map the moment it closes, when agents can build and train models themselves and Claude starts improving Claude. And the loudest signal in the whole thing sits at the end: the company building this is the one asking for a working pause button before the loop closes.

Read the actual Anthropic piece. It's wilder than the hype precisely because it's so measured. As of last month, Claude writes more than 80% of the code Anthropic merges into its own codebase. Their engineers now ship roughly 8x the code per day they did in 2024. On a fixed test they run every release (take some training code, make it run faster), the model went from ~3x a year ago to ~52x. A skilled human gets about 4x in a few hours. And when a researcher hits a wrong turn mid-investigation, the newest model now picks the better next step 64% of the time. The honest part the hype skips is that Anthropic says we are NOT at self-improvement yet. Claude still can't decide which problems are worth solving. That research taste is the last thing keeping a human in the loop. But they openly map the moment it closes, when agents can build and train models themselves and Claude starts improving Claude. And the loudest signal in the whole thing sits at the end: the company building this is the one asking for a working pause button before the loop closes.

Alex Veremeyenko

33,666 次观看 • 1 个月前

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?

Ricardo

2,965,365 次观看 • 2 个月前