> The funny thing about Anthropic haters is that they still mostly believe Anthropic’s marketing. They think Claude is a recursively self-improving silicon God, and that we are all a couple refusals away from falling into the perpetual underclass. This gives them way more power than they deserve.
What is the writer trying to say here?
> anthropic haters think claude is a ... god
who claims this?
Apart from that section, the conclusion is that knowledge workers will be cheaper. This is most likely correct. People who have deep knowledge are now cheaper to replace. That does not mean they're irreplacable, but it'se easier if you have someone with the cognitive ability
> knowledge workers are so grossly overpaid compared to the energy they consume
Less so energy and moreso there is a perception that a large amount of tech workers are significantly overpaid compared to their output.
Why does a SWE in Cary deserve to be paid the same as a SWE in San Jose? Why does a SWE in San Jose deserve to be paid more than a SWE in Cary? That said, there is also the confounding factor of the Twitter/X layoffs (60-70% of headcount was slashed yet the platform remained engineering functional) as well as the infamous story of Uber's three competing internal Slack knockoffs and their associated engineering teams which highlighted the very real issue of the bloat that grew in the tech industry.
> This explains why the Chinese are giving the (much more moderate resources to train) models away for free
That isn't why. In fact, CCP leadership has often evoked Solow's paradox when thinking about AI [0] and push back against AI Maximalism/AGI [1]. Most of the conversation about AI in China is around capability enhancements as well as providing a monetization pathway for BigFund I and II investments, as can be seen with the $295B data center buildout being pushed by the Chinese government [2].
On the OSS side, is a good writeup in The Economist from 2025 that explains China's open source strategy [3].
> The funny thing about Anthropic haters is that they still mostly believe Anthropic’s marketing. They think Claude is a recursively self-improving silicon God, and that we are all a couple refusals away from falling into the perpetual underclass. This gives them way more power than they deserve.
What is the writer trying to say here?
> anthropic haters think claude is a ... god
who claims this?
Apart from that section, the conclusion is that knowledge workers will be cheaper. This is most likely correct. People who have deep knowledge are now cheaper to replace. That does not mean they're irreplacable, but it'se easier if you have someone with the cognitive ability
Yes, that is the whole point. Any technological advancement that creates higher productivity is deflationary.
Rare green account W. I mean this is obvious.
> knowledge workers are so grossly overpaid compared to the energy they consume
Less so energy and moreso there is a perception that a large amount of tech workers are significantly overpaid compared to their output.
Why does a SWE in Cary deserve to be paid the same as a SWE in San Jose? Why does a SWE in San Jose deserve to be paid more than a SWE in Cary? That said, there is also the confounding factor of the Twitter/X layoffs (60-70% of headcount was slashed yet the platform remained engineering functional) as well as the infamous story of Uber's three competing internal Slack knockoffs and their associated engineering teams which highlighted the very real issue of the bloat that grew in the tech industry.
> This explains why the Chinese are giving the (much more moderate resources to train) models away for free
That isn't why. In fact, CCP leadership has often evoked Solow's paradox when thinking about AI [0] and push back against AI Maximalism/AGI [1]. Most of the conversation about AI in China is around capability enhancements as well as providing a monetization pathway for BigFund I and II investments, as can be seen with the $295B data center buildout being pushed by the Chinese government [2].
On the OSS side, is a good writeup in The Economist from 2025 that explains China's open source strategy [3].
[0] - https://m.huxiu.com/article/4780003.html
[1] - https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/china/story20250829-7432514
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-prepares-295-billi...
[3] - https://www.economist.com/business/2025/06/17/why-china-is-g...
The whole article seems sloppy wondering and vaguely elitist-snob.
I’ll summarise what AI will do for economy: In the most likely case that AI is not a literal superset of human capabilities
1. Many jobs are lost
2. Many are created
3. Everyone becomes richer because AI automates things
This is how it has always been. So what new insight did this article bring?