Nope. Warner Bros. was losing money before the merger and had accumulated $40B in net debt.

The headcount reduction was sorely needed, and the merger makes it even more necessary.

If - and this is a big if - Anthropic becomes and stays the industry-leader in LLMs AND if - and this is the second big if - the LLM/AI industry as a whole grows way faster than the rest of the economy - then Anthropic's stock appreciation will likely well-outpace the LLM/AI sector and the market as a whole.

That's the "big reward." The odds of that happening with Anthropic or any other particular AI/LLM company, or any AI/LLM company at all for that matter? Not big enough for me to want to play.

It's high-risk, high-reward, much like dot-coms of the 1990s.

There's also the "known unknowns" of regulatory risks both on the "what will AI be allowed to do" front and the regulations on power-hungry AI data centers themselves. We know these are categories of risks, but we don't have a good handle on how likely any given outcome will be 5 years from now. What are the odds that in 2031 America will be like "you want a data center here? Oh sure, no problem" vs. "you want a data center here? Not In My Backyard!" Once the regulatory environments stabilize it will be much easier to price this into "how much am I willing to pay for a given AI company's stock."

Right now, betting on an AI company's success 5 years down the road feels too much like betting on next year's World Series when we don't even know what the MLB Players Union contract will look like, or if there will even be a season next year.

You or the person you are replying to may not need a human editor, but here are people whose grammar or spelling is so bad they could really benefit from an editor, human or otherwise.

There are also people whose first language is not English, or who are from a part of the world where English is spoken or written in a different style or dialect than Slashdot and they want their posts to not stick out like a sore thumb.

Thanks, that's interesting.

The original violation would be making a derivative product, the LLM, that was not also GPL licensed.

Do you really think that US courts will come to any conclusion other than "AI code is copywritable, the people it learned from have no claim"?

Maybe in Europe there will be fewer rights, but in the US it's going to replace humans.

For a business the only criteria for success is if it increased profit. One of the reasons why so much corporate code is awful beyond words is that they don't care abut doing a good job, only about fulfilling a business need as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Of course it comes back to bite them in many cases. The next contractor spends 5x as long to implement a feature because the architecture is crap and the code is unreadable, but the boss usually has no visibility of that and doesn't know why a feature cost what it cost.

AI is basically the same. Difficult for the people making decisions to quantify what effect it is having in anything but the very short term.

Is there any advantage over RAID5 though? Doesn't ZFS do this at a block level?

I'm a little surprised nobody makes an aviation grade SSD that has the firmware burned into a ROM, and with some RS coding to correct errors in the NAND. I guess there is probably some cost issue, as in it's cheaper to just deal with failing SSDs than to develop such a device.

It's a legally unclear situation. Most human developers do not provide a list of all the open source code they may have read or been influenced by. On the other hand, because these LLMs are offered as a commercial service, there might be issues with everything they generate.

My guess (IANAL) would be that any claim would be against the company that made the LLM, unless the code was copied verbatim from somewhere else, in which case it's no different to a human doing the same thing.

That's what the in-class exams and quizzes are for.

The in-class exams and quizzes solved that problem too.

But even Trillion dollar companies like Meta essentially freeload off the likes of Php where a contribution in the low millions or tens of millions works help bend development to their liking,

Even less: clearly most of these companies don't particularly want to influence the directions (they could hire the devs if they really wanted to). They're jut content to use them. If they chucked, say, 10 grand a year at a handful of projects, the problem would be solved.

But I guess companies are now meeting their doing good quota

It's not even doing good, it ought to be pure, bloody minded self interest. The cost of things like the PHP exploit, heartbleed and so on are absolutely immense. Investing a small amount in the future i jut good business. Trouble it it needs everyone to do it to make it so cheap they don't notice.

I suppose the main thing I'd have said very differently is the terminology, in that I wouldn't regard the kind of incompetent senior as a senior in the first place

The best phrase I heard (I think here) was "10 years experience or 1 year experience repeated 10 times".

But then I'm pretty old school about this: to me, a junior developer needs quite close supervision to produce useful results, a regular/mid developer can perform routine tasks with minimal supervision but might need more help with larger or more complex tasks, while a senior is someone you can give more or less any task on your project to and they'll figure it out, and senior is also the level of someone who would be capable of supervising and training a junior.

Ostensibly yes. The juniors I'm thinking of certainly do need close supervision, though I don't think Claude replaces them because the good one use claude.

What I've noticed is there are a lot of jut plain crap mid level and senior people (for some value of senior). They can do more or less what you say, except they're still crap. The results will be overengineered piles of crap where they've decided to use the latest "technologies" which are really due to curiosity not some actual need. And the whole thing comes with an attitude problem too.

We've had a wave of people, particularly since the tech boom during COVID, who have obviously been over-promoted due to the employee's market and title inflation.

This is true, but my big corporate job spanned COVID, and I can assure you that the problem existed before COVID. Some of the refugees (haha they were in for a shock) from other big corporate shitshows had much the same to say.

Admittedly I wasn't using a paid frontier model, but I've tried it a few times with very mixed results.

One attempt was to write some code for a microcontroller to do some tricky stuff with DMA and timers to generate a complex waveform. It failed miserably and couldn't seem to understand my implementation that did work, or debug it when I introduced a subtle bug.

Another attempt involved having to develop a system to automatically crop and rotate images to be upright and remove the border. It managed to remove the border reliably, but never got about about 30% of them upright. I provided it with sample, hand crafted output to compare against, and told it to keep iterating until it got it right, but it just couldn't figure out how to do it.

Ironically if I just uploaded the images to bog standard consumer AIs like Gemini and ChatGPT, they could reliably crop and rotate the images 100% of the time. I even suggested that it use the same image recognition systems as those were using, but it couldn't make that work either.