erwald

4 ms·

1.
by erwald 6d ago
It's defined in the linked article?
2.
by erwald 6d ago
Why do you think I used AI to write this? (I didn't.)
3.
by erwald 6d ago
Yes, for that newsletter, where I write in my day job as a policy researcher, we use em dashes. For my personal writing (example: https://www.lesswrong.com/users/erich_grunewald ), I use double dashes.
4.
by erwald 7d ago
Haha, I do actually use double dash, as I write in org-mode. I then convert that org-mode text to Markdown and copy and paste the Markdown into the Substack editor, which preserves the double dash. In case it needs to be said, the article i
5.
I think you should almost never use AI to write(erichgrunewald.substack.com)
358 points by erwald 7d ago|170 comments
6.
by erwald 1mo ago
https://concordia-ai.com/research-topics/state-of-ai-safety-...
7.
by erwald 2mo ago
To get the sure-to-be-correct answer to the question they were tasked with answering?
8.
You Should Almost Never Use AI to Write Anything Substantive(erichgrunewald.com)
3 points by erwald 2mo ago|1 comments
9.
by erwald 2mo ago
> Furthermore, export controls, for which Dario Amodei openly advocates, are already prompting China to build its own chips. China is, of course, behind the West, but not as much as you may think. Instead of adopting a Western technology
10.
by erwald 2mo ago
> Anthropic already possesses the compliance, legal, and evaluation infrastructure needed to satisfy such a regime. A university lab, startup, or community does not, even if they somehow manage to train a sufficiently capable model. All
11.
by erwald 2mo ago
Bans on Chinese open weight models being used in the US and bans on AI chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment being exported to China are two extremely different things, and it's not inconsistent in any way to oppose one and e
12.
by erwald 2mo ago
Lots of people paying for a product they use is more or less the opposite of an MLM
13.
by erwald 2mo ago
Right, and the comment I replied to was about revenue, not profit. (That said, while I don't think Anthropic is already profitable, it reportedly expects its first operating profit later this year.)
14.
by erwald 2mo ago
Those seem like reasonable questions about future margins and moats, but I was making the narrower point that revenue is in fact growing quickly, contra the comment above mine
15.
by erwald 2mo ago
I wasn't saying anything about costs, only that revenue is growing quickly
16.
by erwald 2mo ago
No, I wasn't claiming that revenue scales with headcount, though it probably does to some extent. The point is that these companies' revenue is large and growing quickly, which is what the comment above mine denied.
17.
by erwald 2mo ago
It's relevant to the claim I was replying to, which was that revenue isn't growing, not to the question of whether the spending will pay off
18.
by erwald 2mo ago
Maybe, but that's a different claim. You wrote that the improvements are "not translating to a dramatic increase in revenue", but going from about $1B to about $30B run rate in 16 months seems like a pretty dramatic increase
19.
by erwald 2mo ago
The point is that revenue is large and growing quickly, which is what the comment above mine denied
20.
by erwald 2mo ago
That's a point about margins, not revenue
21.
by erwald 2mo ago
True, but the comment I was replying to was about revenue, not costs
22.
by erwald 2mo ago
"Anthropic and OpenAI generate a lot of revenue with relatively few employees – an estimated $9M and $5.5M in revenue per employee (RPE), respectively. If either company were to go public, it would have a higher RPE than any public tec
23.
by erwald 2mo ago
Master craftsmen paid apprentices almost next to nothing, and they were often contractually guaranteed to stick around for many years, so the teaching was a kind of wage and also a cost that could be recuperated later on. (The apprentice ev
24.
by erwald 3mo ago
No, 2027 was never their median forecast; it was their modal forecast. See https://blog.aifutures.org/p/clarifying-how-our-ai-timelines... It's more like it moved from 2028-2032 to 2030-2035 (depending on the auth
25.
by erwald 3mo ago
I think electricity doesn't matter that much (yet) because China is bottlenecked on chips. I think the incentives/directives to build on Huawei also doesn't matter that much yet because it's still such a small percentage
26.
by erwald 3mo ago
Yeah, to be clear I'm pretty excited about confidential computing and startups building on it, like Tinfoil, for some use cases. I just wanted to point out it's far from adequate for some important threat models (e.g., securing mo
27.
by erwald 3mo ago
Where did you get this information? I think it's wrong -- I'm pretty sure they used the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) under the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), which is under Commerce, not ITAR which is under the State
28.
by erwald 3mo ago
Confidential computing is not secure against a potential attacker who has physical access to the hardware. The CC security guarantees explicitly assume the attacker has no physical access.
29.
by erwald 3mo ago
I don't think ITAR has anything to do with any of this.
30.
by erwald 4mo ago
What are your general, vibes-based impressions of Mythos so far?

More ›