Oh yes. Claude still saves the day sometimes, but hopefully better alternatives pop up soon.
Recent case: had to plan a trip involving multiple bus switches. Gpt 5.6 Sol proposed a route that would bring me to a dead end, since it was sunday and a specific bus had a different route on weekends.
Opus 5 correctly identified that and built a route that worked.
But yes, Darios wife trying to get funding from Epstein for a porn studio says a lot about the founder.
I am fully unbothered about Amodei's wife trying to make high end porn for women, in the same way that I am fully unbothered by Melania Trump having been essentially a glamour/nude model. I know (and have creatively worked) with women who do/have done both; they are better, less hypocritical, more grounded humans than many others.
Both Cami Clark and Melania Trump can properly be judged on their involvement with Trump, Epstein (or possibly Trump and Epstein) alone.
I think the Epstein money thing reflects extremely poorly on Cami Clark's judgement. Basic due diligence should have shown up that he went to prison for something very anti-women, and even then it was clear he secured a shady deal with a prosecutor.
I don't know how it reflects on Amodei except that her presence as a sort of off-the-books "adviser" is yet more evidence that Anthropic runs by giving Dario a play pen to be a "visionary" (a bunch of advisers and his only direct report, a chief of staff) while his sister actually runs the gig.
"High end" porn business is usually linked with other "services", my guess is that his wife saw value not in revenue from porn but from influence the other services may bring.
Of course this is speculative, but this is my guess about her. Darios assiciation with her also indicates a lot about his moral compass.
Imagine what we don't know.
Also there is a very big difference for a woman to participate in porn (usually they regret it) and a women trying to get other women to make porn.
High end porn can just be expensive production values; that is what I assumed. She wanted a proper studio and production company, and the implication is she was positioning it in opposition to the handful of studios that dominate that industry who have a very male outlook. She did want an e-commerce platform attached, but again, that's commonplace.
None of that is necessarily indicative of trafficking or prostitution, but banks and payment providers tend to run scared of it, so I suppose if one does want serious investment to make a studio, there are relatively few people you can go to.
She went to Epstein because she knew he was very rich and unbothered by that association, I am sure. The fact that she must also have known who he was — a sex offender who basic due diligence would have told her was likely a trafficker — is what is ugly.
What is bizarre about it is that if she had taken his money then needed to go to payment providers, she would have had an extra millstone around her neck, because they definitely do due diligence. But maybe Epstein had clout enough to offset his reputation.
Not going to too get into questions of porn and regret, except to say that even in a post-onlyfans world I think "regret" is often shorthand for "made to regret", which is rather different. It's the same for art and life models, which is where my creative experience lies. People are always out there trying to project their morality onto things that are not their business, so subsequent "regret" is often a practical, imposed matter.
This is why I think it's important that we judge these women for the clearer questions of morality that have nothing to do with porn.
There are exceptional cases, detrimental to both you and the company. Company already swallowed a pretty serious loss, in that case arguably common sense is to let it go, sometimes sh*t happens.
> generally we insure ourselves against acts of nature and accidents and thieves.
No. We insure ourselves against unforeseen events whose effects are financially unbearable to us otherwise. You've conveniently carved out certain unforeseen events in order to serve your point rather than being intellectually honest.
Businesses insure themselves against the death of an important employee, for example. If that employee is murdered, that is neither an act of nature, an accident, nor thievery.
You might argue "you were robbed of an employee" and stretch the meaning of the word "thief" but then I'd say a similar stretching of "act of nature [or] accident" includes "aircraft malfunction"
Businesses also insure against a great many other things.
If they truly were exceptional that would be fine. But long delays happen a lot, and I am sure there are things airlines could do to improve that like maintain the planes better so they aren't grounded as often and having backup planes so that if one has problems they can put customers on a different one.
I'm with you on the delays, especially since it's one sided, company doesn't loose anything, main inconvenicence is to the user so the company has to be incentivised to be on time (it may be even beneficial for the airport, since passengers would buy more overpriced stuff from waiting area).
I was referring to the case when an engine went bad and company had to use intermediate airport and accomodate all users for the night. Also you wouldn't want to punish company hard for admiting technical issues, since that might cause them to underreport and create dangerous situations.
It probably doesn't make sense for every airline to have a backup at every airport. But maybe the airport itself keeps a couple of backup planes that it rents out to airlines when they need it.
This is a distinction without a difference. Arko proposed to receive a copy of all RubyGems access logs containing full user PII.
He'd accept this PII en lieu of dollars for secondary on call coverage, so a safe assumption is that he intended to monetize the extracted user PII in some way. I am sure he would deny this, but there's a point where you have to let the evidence we do have combined with common sense guide us to the most likely conclusion.
You have a set of apis that user can access to do something, the llm uses those same apis. How is that limiting usefulness? By not invoking apis user is not allowed to?
The only way to mitigate the damage an LLM can do because of prompt injection is to limit what that LLM can do in the first place. That’s what they mean by limiting its usefulness. If an LLM has access to an api and I want it to abuse that API in some way, I can attack its prompt and eventually get it to use the api the way I want
Nope, thermodynamics is weird at small scales. Hot spots can absolutely reach 1400C if not designed not to. Sophie Wilson (initial architect of the ARM processor) has talked about how poorly designed silicon can reach point temperatures hotter than a nuclear reactor steady state.
That’s crazy. I thought maybe some of the other elements used in modern semiconductors might melt first. The wiring seems like a potential problem. But before that even the elements they use in the transistors themselves could be an issue.
The wiring has lower resistance for a bunch of different reasons, so the heat has a tendency to be concentrated on the transistors themselves (which are mostly silicon, just doped).
Like I have already said in another comment, semiconductors and metals behave differently when temperature increases.
For metals the electrical resistance increases with temperature, causing a negative feedback that limits the increase of the temperature, while for semiconductors the electrical resistance decreases with temperature above a certain threshold, so once that threshold is reached positive feedback increases the temperature very quickly until the semiconductor is melted, unless there is some protection system that limits the power dissipation through the semiconductor.
That is why it is very easy to melt silicon in an integrated circuit or in a discrete device, despite its high melting point.
The melting of silicon was a common phenomenon already during the second breakdown of power transistors, e.g. in audio amplifiers or in TV sets, more than a half of century ago.
In semiconductors there is a positive feedback between temperature and the current that passes through them, so once a certain threshold is passed, the current and the temperature grow very quickly until the semiconductor is melted. This is opposite to the behavior of metals, where resistance grows with temperature, tending to limit the current that passes through the metal, when it overheats.
The currents through the transistors of SOTA logic gates are very small, but their volumes are also very small, so the power density is similar to that in high power transistors.
Thus thermal breakdown that leads to silicon melting is easily achievable. This is why any modern CPU has on-die temperature sensors, so that temperature is monitored and power dissipation is limited, to ensure that the threshold that triggers positive thermal feedback is never reached.
wow, i had heard of transistor thermal runaway, but i didn't know you could reach silicon melting point temperatures. though i guess in hindsight it makes sense that, considering that during the manufacturing process semiconductors are already exposed to very high temperatures, if you are instantly permanently altering a device with heat (as you do when you destroy it through thermal runaway), you must be reaching comparably high temperatures.
what type of people look at heat transfer at the device level in an IC (and at such short time scales)? where can i learn more about that? this looks like it could have an impact in analog power circuits, because even if you don't destroy the transistor you could alter its characteristics, but i haven't seen a lot of attention being paid to that. personally i guess i figured individual transistors never went significantly beyond the temperature ranges we already consider for the circuit as a whole.
Indeed. For instance, dopants can diffuse and metals can intermix with silicon (silicide formation), both degrade device performance. Solder and packages melt before any of this happens.
It is easy to melt the semiconductor in a semiconductor device long before the solder or package materials are melted.
Above a certain temperature threshold, the electrical resistance of semiconductors drops exponentially with temperature, which is why NTC (negative thermal coefficient) thermistors are made of semiconductor materials.
This causes a positive feedback loop that increases the current very quickly and concentrates it through a narrow channel through the semiconductor (so the current density can be extremely high even when the total current is still low), which can easily reach 1500 Celsius degrees, melting the silicon, while the temperature of the package and of the solder remains very low (because the time is too short for the temperature to propagate outwards from the melted silicon channel).
reply