new | show | ask | jobs Github

andrewchambers 4 hours ago

This seems like it will have pretty huge negative affects on startups needing to compete with 'trusted partners'

▲

A_D_E_P_T 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Startups don't have as much money to spend on lobbying and gifts, though.

▲

slashdave 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well... there are crypto startups, and perhaps a generous definition of "money"

▲

tyre 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Crypto companies were built for anonymous transfers of wealth. It's why they are perfect for money laundering and corruption. Venture backed companies are more difficult, since you would need a paper trail (equity, incorporation documents, beneficial owners, etc.)

It's not impossible, of course. It's not even terribly difficult, but it does require a different level of record.

(No, I'm not saying that the goons running the United States give a shit or won't do it anyway.)

	▲	citadel_melon an hour ago \| parent [-]
		VC companies do not dig into the numbers as you suggest. FTX was able to get away with their fraud for a long time for that very reason. VC companies don’t care if some of their investments are fraudulent as they spread their eggs so thin that it doesn’t matter if any given basket blows up. VC firms stated this to the press outright when FTX blew up. Also most crypto companies are not good for laundering since the blockchains record that fraud forever and publicly. I could see some specific protocols where that may not be true — like monero or tornado cash — but these projects are not really startups. Most crypto startups pitch their products for enterprise customers and thus would be horrible for laundering money.

▲

ares623 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Will startups be even a thing now that the VCs obviously just need to funnel all their money to 2 or so companies ad-infinitum for guaranteed returns.

▲

airstrike 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The single most important question to be discussed on this website right now.

	▲	redcheeks 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Whatever happened to those network states? It's starting to look like it's them, UAE or Singapore

▲

andy99 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Other than maybe some in-the-moment cybersec wrappers, is this really true? Does anyone think a startup with a good product is going to be materially disadvantaged by not having access to an incrementally better security focused LLM release? It’s lots of fun to pretend it’s some step-change that’s too dangerous for general release, but in real life it’s not conferring some massive advantage that any real startup would need to compete. Almost everyone would be best just to ignore it and keep building.

(Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)

▲

pdimitar 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Does anyone think a startup with a good product is going to be materially disadvantaged by not having access to an incrementally better security focused LLM release?

- It's not "incrementally better". It's a complete game changer. Opus 4.8 on max thinking does X amount of mistakes in my commercial work. Fable 5 did 5% of X. Counted. I barely had anything to contribute in the work sessions, for a full week I could count on my two hands the total amount of times I actually caught Fable 5 -- and one part of those were not true mistakes, more like divergence from policy in our `CLAUDE.md` files.

- It's not "security focused". It's simply better in every way _plus_ it's also security-conscious.

- It legitimately accelerated my work. I don't have too much unknowns in my work, I simply have way too much to do. Fable 5 was an objective and measurable improvement over Opus 4.8. Returning to it after Fable 5 was removed was extremely discouraging and frustrating, and still is to some extent.

> It’s lots of fun to pretend it’s some step-change that’s too dangerous for general release

Maybe, but not as much fun as tearing down a straw man apparently. :)

> (Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)

It's ridiculous for multiple other reasons but ridiculous nonetheless.

▲

tbcj 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Fable wasn’t available for a full week. It was released on June 9 and made unavailable June 12.

	▲	pdimitar 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Okay, might have mistook 4 work days for 5.

▲

afavour 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That kind of gets to the absurdity of it. Either it’s a wildly powerful next generation model with incredible capabilities and thus needs to be limited… or it’s another progressive enhancement like we’ve seen already and limiting access to it makes no sense.

▲

paytonjjones 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think that follows.

Say you had a perfectly smooth progressive chain from rocks to spears to guns to nuclear weapons. When it comes to government restrictions, you still have to choose to draw lines somewhere, right?

▲

ares623 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The enemy is both all-powerful and pathetic, at the same time, all the time.

	▲	tyre 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		As someone old enough to remember the party breakdown in Congress when Obama came to office, yes, I can confirm that this is possible.

▲

xorgun 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, i do. I have 10xd my productivity since last year and im not smarter. And yes my code is high quality

▲

redcheeks 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]