Do people seriously trust what this guy says anymore?

It doesnt matter if you trust them or not. I don't know why people get so hung up on this. Blind trust is for children and the only certain things in this world are death and taxes.

The point is that openAI is currently messaging against IPO in 2026. That is news by itself

> The point is that openAI is currently messaging against IPO in 2026. That is news by itself

It's not news when it's not trustworthy...you missed my point.

He can both believe that AND be the slime mold chief. His rationale doesn't excuse it - and worse this all degrades into a "trust me bro" situation.

You can build good stuff, care, and be very opinionated...you can also be all of those things and still be an asshole.

Did anyone say you said anything untruthful? No, they just called you an asshole. You can both be an asshole and be right.

PS - Just some advice that I learned in sales 101 early in my career...focusing on shit talking the competition generally isn't a strategy that works well.

> You can both be an asshole and be right.

"You're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole." - The Dude

Unless you are at the basketball court where talking smack is a valid winnign strategy

> healthy profit margin (as near as we can tell from the outside)

Ugh we still don't know if this is true and it's nearly impossible to calculate without a full understanding of the real CAPEX cycle. Stop spreading these rumors until we know for sure.

SemiAnalysis estimates their profit margin to be 70%. To be losing money on inference implies that their costs are almost 4X higher than SemiAnalysis has calculated. That's not credible.

But we do have a reasonable estimate of model size.

You can estimate the model size by looking at tokens per second and comparing to open source models

> but they're very frequent.

Yet you state their frequency as some sort of statistical fact. Your anecdotal experience doesn't make it any more or less true.

and you are refuting with even less justification. I told you how to check for yourself if you actually cared about veracity. Best of luck trying to get funding to publish something academic anti-CCP though, but I'd love it if you did. Also this is just a conversation, not an academic debate

> I told you how to check for yourself if you actually cared about veracity.

Which means nothing. You still dont get my point.

> Also this is just a conversation, not an academic debate

It can be both.

> For the many people who resist the AGI label possibly ever being achieved, I'd be curious to hear takes on what would make you think Astra is yet to be AGI, and what would still need to be achieved for this to effectively be AGI from this point forward.

Simple. AGI is undefinable and benchmarks are notoriously flawed.

I use perplexity simply to avoid underlying vendor lock in.

> his strategy for manipulating human attention has been correct.

"Correct" is not the word you're looking for here. More like "very effective". His strategy for manipulating human attention is very effective, but the correctness of his strategy isn't relevant here, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

Because a sincere discussion of media (a fundamentally insincere medium with perverse incentives) is silly without addressing this.

Autistically pretending the world is rational and not factoring this in is just as false as Zitron’s predictions.

Nothing in acknowledging those perverse incentives requires that one misleadingly use the word “correct” in place of “effective”.

This is the most bizarre and trivial line of argument I’ve ever seen on HN.

Swapping those words changes nothing about that sentence.

They aren't synonyms and are, in general, not interchangeable. If I'm trying to get out of an unpleasant task by intentionally failing an aptitude test, the "correct" answer is going to be the least effective. Likewise if I'm crafting a click-bait headline or trying to make use of Cunningham's Law or... well, I hope you get the point.

If the Opus/Fable harness is superior and it's written using Opus/Fable then it will cease to be a moat. Otherwise the premise for coding using LLMs is essentially untrue.

> Otherwise the premise for coding using LLMs is essentially untrue.

Why? Written by does not mean designed by etc. There's a lot more to it.