I am beginning to fear Claude is going to massively raise prices or at the very least severely restrict its $20/month plan. Hope it doesn’t happen but feels inevitable

I like the approach, however, could tell this is done by AI, someone that studied it at the periphery. The characters, if you are automating the creation, should be a lot more in depth, at least that’s what I would expect.

It still has the best AI news because users are not quitting it. Even the most fervent left leaning folks I know cannot quit it. Too bad it fell into the wrong hands and became a shell of its former self

So this is trending towards new prices and quotas just like your Netflix pricing. The cost of this infra is high or they have realized they have hit a tipping point in usage and they can raise prices and people will pay, just like Netflix.

Intuitively every existing model has already been trained on all code, all vulnerabilities reported, all security papers. So they all have the capability. Small models fall short because they may not be able to find a vulnerability that spans across a large function chain but for the most part they should suffice too.

Of course I say this without any knowledge of what mythos is doing or how it’s different. I am sure it’s somehow different

Not intuitive at all. Not all models are equally capable, just because they had the same training data. The model architecture (as a whole) is very important. To reduce capability, you can reduce layers, tool use, thinking, quantize it, etc. This is trivially proven by a cursory glance in the rough direction of any set of benchmarks (or actual use).

Using small models as a classifier "there might be a vulnerability here" is probably reasonable, if you have a model capable of proving it. There are many companies attempting this without the verification step, resulting in AI vulnerability checker being banned left and right, from the nonsense noise.

This is a cool idea, very well put through for everyone to understand such an esoteric concept.

However I wonder if the core idea itself is useful or not in practice. With modern memory there are two main aspects it makes worse. First is cost, it needs to double the memory used for the same compute. With memory costs already soaring this is not good. Then the other main issue of throughout, haven’t put enough thought into that yet but feels like it requires more orchestration and increases costs there too.

Building robots at that scale without any indication that the market wants it is weird. I wouldn’t want to say atupid because with musk there is no rational thought. However this is not cars where the concept exists and we know people spend 100k towards a car. We don’t know if people will even spend on a robot that doesn’t do shit. Figure is looking at 100-150k robot if built at scale, so u less they revised this estimate down drastically, what does a 20k robot do?

Well from this article I got the feeling the intended customer is industrial, not domestic. There's a lot of talk about how much a robot can lift versus hydraulic systems.

But I do also get the feeling that maybe Musk is just off his rocker and everyone else is copying what he does just in case he actually a genius

What evidence is there than industrial customers want general purpose humanoid robots over specialist ones?

There are plenty of positions were you have normal humans doing only a handful of tasks.

Checkout youtube on some chinese factories building like rice cooker and co. They have like 10-50 stops were one person only does like 1-5 things. Putting tape on, screwing something together etc.

I can see it as the last niche were the real big specialised and for purpose build robots are just not economicly

Musk has a very spiky character sheet. He is, in some dimensions, extraordinarily stupid, and I believe his ego makes a lot of big decisions. But something that might fall into the genius category is this: building things speculatively, primarily for the capabilities that you anticipate developing along the way, the nature of which are not yet known. But this increases your odds of having capabilities in the future that others lack, which looks a lot like a venture capital oeuvre.

To condense that, i might use a phrase like "blind-buying future option space"

Whether Musk deserves that credit is a moot point. I haven't trusted a thing he's said for years, and studying him for revealed intent can't get past "clown on drugs" without violating occam's razor.

The industry has a lot more money and easier use cases.

A robot like Optimus will not be a household robot for years to come. Why? If it falls, it will crash into some kind of glas from doors to windows etc. If it falls it might crash a human or animal underneath it. It might trip on a toy or stairs and crash into a wall.

I would love to have one robot but 50k? Who buys something for 50k? A normal person has to save up for a car and they need a car, for a household robot you need a lot of income to justify 50k. You will buy a car, flat, kitchen, etc. before you will buy a 50k robot.

10k perhaps is more realistic but than it has to be good. Like if you are alone, I don't think you will recognize normal housework as such a bad thing that you will buy a robot for a small flat.

For families, the robot has to be very good and really save.

If you have a partner not working, you might not be able to afford a robot and that perosn has time anyway to do all of that.

I can imagine having a robot for elder people and some remote service using these robots to do stuff for them but 50k is costly.

I'm not bullish on household robots for the next 10 years at all. Now you have another problem though, if they become really good in an industry setting, guess who will lose their jobs? yeah exactly the people whou should be able to buy these.

>A robot like Optimus will not be a household robot for years to come. Why? If it falls, it will crash into some kind of glas from doors to windows etc. If it falls it might crash a human or animal underneath it. It might trip on a toy or stairs and crash into a wall.

Strong disagree here we have plenty of machinery that we use that could be very dangerous if it fails, but they just slap a disclaimer on it and that’s usually enough the same is going to be done here.

In a normal household? Like what?

I have nothing compared to a 60kg robot who is moving around in my flat. Even in my daily life the only thing i can come up with, is a car.

Nontheless, industry pays more, faster, has more generic basic use cases and higher incentive to buy.

We literally pipe in flammable gases into kitchens, and then burn them there. These fail a lot all the time. Clogged heaters kill people because of carbon monoxide poisoning and electric coil heaters burn down apartments. Pressure cookers are basically controlled bombs. People have hundred pound pitbulls in their houses and even though we trust them they’re technically inherently unpredictable. There are a lot of dangerous things in our homes that we accept and build guard rails around a robot doesn’t seem that much crazier.

The stove is in one place, it produces heat, we train everyone that this is dangerous including our kids (firefighters showed me in 1th grade what an oil fire is).

We added stinky smell to gas.

Pressure cookers are only used by 1-2 people in the kitchen and not that regularly. But a friend of mine actually burned himself through the steam when he opened it up.

The pitbull things is dangerous. But they do'nt run through window and if they fall down stairs, they won't kill someone.

Look we will see how long it will take but i do not think we will see household robots soon. Im confident we will see them in the industry on mass before we see them in real households in relevant numbers.

There's zero chance I'll let a robot into my home to do my dishes when I know it'll be filming and audio recording 24/7 and sending that data directly back to Elon who will mine the feed and sell that data or use it against me every chance he gets. It's so much worse that the idiots who bug their own homes with "smart" assistants and ring cameras. You'd have to be crazy to let someone else's drone into your house.

Give me a similar device that I own and control, one without access to the internet, and I'll be happy to let a robot do my dishes, but otherwise such robots are strictly for fools (and sadly there are plenty of those).

THIS!

An autonomous robot that I program, I update (or don't) as and when I see fit, and does not need to connect to the internet or to anything, for $20k that does dishes, or helps me lift things at the shop, and returning data to it's maker IF AND ONLY IF, AND WHEN, I CHOOSE (or dont)? Great - take my money!

An ambulatory machine with eyes, ears, touch sensors, continually watching, listening, observing, mapping, recording everything it encounters in my home and/or shop and sending all that data back to it's manufacturer "for improved user experience"? HELL, NO!

The latter, supplied by Musk, even if he's paying me $1 million per year to 'host' it? I'll buy the equipment to destroy it as soon as it comes onto my property.

I don't think there is any supplier I could even begin to trust when they require a connection. Can anyone here think of one?

I don’t see the allure here. It’s nothing but an ai assistant that’s already on every phone. The interaction angle is not clean at all. I hear Apple is going to release something similar. Very curious to see how that goes, I am extremely pessimistic on that one. Let’s see

I wonder if the message of eff doesn’t resonate with the younger generation who did not see the OS wars first hand and instead always saw Microsoft as a cloud provider and Apple and Google as the OS providers.

This is actually really nice from anthropic. They are aggressively owning the entire development stack for every swe. They become the default development platform. Automatic recurring revenue too and I am sure they will come up with more categories of subscriptions too.