I’m not surprised they closed the loophole, it always felt a little hacky using an Anthropic monthly sub as an API with a spoofed prompt (“You are Claude Code, Anthropic's official CLI for Claude”) with OpenCode.
Google will probably close off their Antigravity models to 3P tools as well.
It’s incredibly impressive to see a large company with over 30x as many employees (or 2x if you compare with GDM) than OAI step back into the AI race compared to where they were with Bard a few years ago.
Google has proved it doesn’t want to be the next IBM or Microsoft.
Why are people so surprised? Attention Is All You Need was authored by Googlers. It’s not like they were blindsided.. OpenAI prouctionized it first but it didn’t make sense to count Google out given their AI history?
Huh? They absolutely were blindsided and the evidence is there. No one expected ChatGPT to take off like it did, not even OpenAI. Google put out some embarrassing products out for the first couple of years, called a code red internally, asked Sergey and Larry to come back. The fact that they recovered doesn’t mean they weren’t initially blindsided.
People are surprised because Google released multiple surprisingly bad products and it was starting to look like they had lost their edge. It’s rare for a company their size to make such a big turnaround so quickly.
Actually Microsoft has also shown it doesn't want to be the next IBM. I think at this point Apple is the one where I have trouble seeing a long-term plan.
It probably depends on what "The next IBM" means for people. Microsoft is so deeply embedded into companies right now that for larger cooperation it's practically impossible to get rid of them, and their cloud-driven strategy is very profitable.
You should compare the number of top AI scientists each company has. I think those numbers are comparable (I’m guessing each has a couple of dozen). Also how attractive each company is to the best young researchers.
We're talking about code generation here but most people's interactions with LLMs are through text. On that metric Google has led OpenAI for over a year now. Even Grok in "thinking" mode leads OpenAI
Better yet, setup transaction alerts on all your credit cards, and use a budgeting app like Monarch/YNAB to review all your household transactions each month or receive weekly email summaries.
The subway systems is one of the greatest socioeconomic equalizers in NYC. During rush hour, you'll share a subway car with a homeless man, an ER doctor wearing scrubs, a fashion model wearing YSL, a finance bro, and a food delivery worker. It's an amazing city for people watching.
The difference is Tesla had a moat with the electric car market, there were no affordable and practical EVs 10 years ago. OpenAI is surrounded by competition and Meta is constantly releasing Llama weights to break up any closed source monopolies.
Tesla is still overvalued today with a moat that is more a puddle than anything. Elon realized that cars weren't gonna carry the hype anymore, so now it's all robotaxi, which will almost certainly be more vaporware.
While it was an affordable vehicle, saying that it was practical is an overstatement. Charging networks were abysmal and actually still are for non-Tesla compatible vehicles. If you had experience using EVgo and similar small networks you probably wouldn't sound as confident.
Since I am technically "people", I can assure you that there indeed existed non-Tesla charging stations in 2014. I was living in a medium size city in an apartment. Since your original comment is specifically about cities, I would like to point out that cities are often associated with apartment buildings, lack of individual garages, etc. Even today saying that EV owners in cities mostly rely on charging at home or at work does not seem valid.
That wasn't my comment but I will say that lots of people have houses with garages in cities. Those that don't often will choose to not purchase an electric vehicle.
Eh it was pretty limited. The Leaf (then) couldn't go from my house, to the airport in my city (Melbourne) and back on one charge. That always made it a dealbreaker for me.
And that's going by Nissan's claimed range, not even real world. So that's on a 100% charge, when the car is brand new with no battery degradation, and under the ideal efficiency conditions that you never really get.
It's pretty insane to see remote detonation technology
used and implemented in 1996, considering cell phones looked like Nokia bricks and the RF hardware needed to implement this needs to fit in a pretty tight space in the phone.
Its one thing to figure out how to wire the vibrator in a phone into an external explosive activation circuit.
Its a whole other thing to do a supply chain intercept on an entire factory run of pagers, build a difficult to detect explosive into them, get them into the hands of your enemies, and remotely trigger them over infrastructure you don't directly control.
This is an incredible level of execution. And, presumably, the IDF or some attached intelligence agency demonstrating how deeply they own their adversary's networks.
I'm not sure they necessarily need to deeply own their adversary's networks. I'd be impressed if Lebanese pager tech has any serious kind of encryption, for example. And we're already accepting at face value that they sabotaged the devices, so it's possible this was done with a separate RF signal than their own cellular network, even if it is locked down.
But yes, the supply chain sabotaging is certainly impressive.
You probably need firmware and some major component modification, such as a display or battery, but not more than this, to pull it off. So at a minimum, two components, or perhaps one smart component such as a display.
It seems the model was the AP-900, not the AR-924, which used alkaline (ie removable) batteries, so a new theory is an EFP (explosively formed penetrator) manufactured into the device.
It appears the devices do not function on cell phone networks but instead on internal radio networks such as those used within industrial or medical settings.
Best guess is the displays because:
1) there is enough room for the EFP,
2) you could modify the component to trigger itself, meaning it doesn’t need coordination between any other parts of the device
3) there are a lot of injuries to the face reported — with a display you could trip on button push without needing access to the button, when people tend to be looking right at the EFP
4) in the videos the explosions look very directional
Google will probably close off their Antigravity models to 3P tools as well.