😃
almost a decade+ ago while working in big tech i changed my visible title to "applied generalist" because this is basically how i thought about myself from the moment i was on the internet as a kid. i didn't jive with product management cuz i wasn't supposed to write code (ppl would look at you weirdly if you did this), & i hated the idea of being just an engineer because ppl would just treat you like a code monkey, & i hated being in design because ppl often just treated you as a pixel pusher.
legacy companies (which i now include big tech as part of) are still organized around highly specific roles like these + levels, & career ladders. i.e. your position in the hierarchy determines not only what you actually do but also how ppl interact with you.
i remember walking into meetings with VPs who didn't know how to treat me cuz they couldn't place me in a ladder due to my lack of an officially sanctioned title. & i absolutely hated this existence with a passion. being pigeonholed into a narrowly defined function felt like wearing a kind of straitjacket.
this is why the member of technical staff movement with ai companies is so damn necessary. if you as a company do not move towards a more general model like this, you will absolutely get left behind & alienate ppl who can perform across the spectrum.
AI/Tech leaders quitting their jobs and tinkering with childlike curiosity and joy with no expectation of $$$ is great to watch.
Karpathy was one of the greats.
Hopefully, this is the future we get once AGI makes things abundant.
Fucking hell. Hostage capital.
💯 - but people really need to minimize friction and increase engaging-ness of any content creation. Just because something is easy to create, doesn't mean it's going to get consumed.
But it subsidizes the cost of training the next big model which is where most spends divert to. No one wants your inference if you're not 1. the best or 2. the cheapest. Both a race to the bottom until one lab gets to AGI first.
The TAM for AI spend is all human spend.
This is the key stat. The average Fortune 500 customer of Anthropic spends less than .1% of their expenses on Anthropic.
While that number likely will eventually asymptote somewhere (token prices coming down, and other large enterprise spend areas not going away), there’s no reason it can’t be 10-50X higher than this, reaching a “mere” 1-5% of spend. Which would still be a fraction of what most startups are spending.
Thus, you can see how big of a divide there is between the frontier users of AI and the rest of the world still.
Today, only a microscopically small set of companies are actually using agents for large amounts of background tasks and inside of workflows that aren’t human prompted. This Fortune 500 spend is likely dominated by coding tasks and broad employee productivity use-cases.
But the big jump will come as these enterprises start to rewire their underlying processes for agents, which we’re now in the earliest stages of seeing. Agents processing large amounts of data in the enterprises; swarms doing coding, bio research, cyber, and other large fan out tasks; background workflows executing tasks in processes, and so on. All of these use cases generally are 100X bigger consumers of tokens, and much closer to direct ROI on the spend.
This S-1 gives you a sense of both the strength of the frontier lab business model - even amidst massive competition - and how early we are in the build out of AI.
🤣
I knew that the Anthropic S1 would have some goofy risk factors but this has to take the cake
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
This post is satire.
sec.gov/Archives/edgar…
Multimodal frontier AI will make all humans superhumans in the physical world as well. Imagine this with a Neuralink.
Yep, so easy.
i figured out how to do this
the game is to draw 8 cards and combines them arithmetically to get any 4 digit number
consider one puzzle with 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and target 7217
a solution is 7217=9*(6*(11*12)+5*8/4)-1
first step is to realize that this problem is not only mostly solvable (98% of puzzle has a solution), there are usually many ways to solve it
for example,
7217=(12×9-5)×(11×6+4)+8-1
=11×8×(12×6+9+5-4)+1
=11×(12+4)×(9×6-8-5)+1
in fact, most puzzles each has 100+ unique solutions (here a+b*c and c*b+a count as one solution)
i know this by writing code to analyze large amount of puzzles, but you can just play the game long enough to notice as well
once you build the confidence, here's one practical methodology i found by playing a bit
a typical solution consists of the main multiplicative stem and some corrections along the way
you can typically get 3-4 out of the largest 5 numbers form the stem, say the numbers are a1, a2, ..., a8 ranked from large to small
so final solution typically looks something like
a1 * a2 * a3 with some corrections along the way like
((a1 + a5) * a3 + a7) * a8 + a4 + a2
now you do need to be familiar with how to factorize numbers, there are simply tricks like the sum of digits of a number can be divided by 9 then that number can be divided by 9 as well, like 783 can be divided by 9 because 7+8+3=18 can be divided by 9
then you work your work backwards to see what correction is needed on the original target to divide it down
you typically already have a rough sense of what the main multiplicative trunk could be
take this hand as an example 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and target 7217
6*8*9*11 = 6*8*99 ~ 4800 which is far from 7217, which means you'll most likely need 11 & 12 in the trunk
in fact 6*9*11*12 = 72*99 ~ 7200 looks close!
now we work backwards and try to correct it a bit so it can be divided by 9, 11, or 12
here's where there's a bit trial & error but because there're many possible solutions, it tends to work out
7217 digits sum up to 7+2+1+7 = 17, which means with a correction of 1 it's dividable by 9
so (7217+1)/9 = 802 (you need to be able to do this kind of math in your head, which is not very hard but needs practice)
now we are left with 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and we need to make 802
we try to find correction again, for example, what's the correction that makes it dividable by 12? it needs to be dividable by both 3 and 4, it's not hard to tell you can add 2
802 + 2 = 804/12 = 67
once you have that, you know you can make a 66 as well
802 - 10 = 792/12 = 66
once you have 66 we have 6 * 11, then we need to make a 10 from 4, 5, 8, so you can do 5*8/4
the last part might look like luck, but really you can try the divider number exhaustively, and because there are typically many solutions, you'll find a valid solution relatively fast
this method almost always works
now the deeper reason that there's nearly always a solution is related to percolation theory in math
consider a sponge, it's full of holes and water can flow through it. but if the holes are sparser, then at some point it becomes very unlikely for water to flow through
there's a "phase transition" at which point the sponge goes from water-permeating to not
when it is water-permeating, there's many path for water to flow through
in this card game, the number of cards is critical, if you can too few cards, then the probability of finding a right solution decreases dramatically
but with enough cards, there's almost certainly a solution, and when there's a solution, there are typically many





















