Luckily the future is absolutely going to be that star trek one where technological abundance means we are all wealthy and have free time to develop personally, and not the future where all the money bubbles up into the hands of a thin-skinned malignant narcissist who wants to play with launching rockets and provoking racial violence /s
Luckily I needed a new laptop and I bought an M1 Max secondhand from a friend quite cheaply because it was fast enough to recompile something else I am interested in.
So for me, there is no additional hardware cost; it was acquired in replacement.
I run the AI models at home on this kit because I want to; I'll use openrouter if I need to.
I accept the economics of this article are right. But I feel so incredibly sad about this outcome that we're now just to be people caretaking machines that do the job we loved that actually I am not sure that exercising this nuance is going to matter in the long term.
It turns out it is a mistake I have made in my life — now really unfixable because I am a bit too old — to believe that I will always find enough fulfilment in my work to offset the absence of personal fulfilment elsewhere; I have always enjoyed being able to help people directly by doing a thing I love and I am good at, and that has kept away the sadness of finding it difficult to build a conventional family life to enjoy.
I assumed I would always find some new way to find that enjoyment, but even the slim enjoyment from being able to explore this stuff on my own kit in my own terms will not be enough if the pendulum does not swing back towards human effort.
It is a dismal world we have made for ourselves. Lately I have found myself dreading growing too much older in it.
If an identical task takes a day on both sides, then the human route uses less energy, surely.
Brains are thousands or maybe even millions of times more fuel-efficient than computers and you are alive for the whole day either way, right? You probably eat about the same even.
The reason executives think AI is more efficient is that it more space efficient than a human and doesn't demand to be paid or work only a set number of hours. Everything with computing is more efficient if you resent having to give money to other humans. If they could just not have you be alive when they don't need you, it'd possibly be different.
Even though I think at a typical British freelance rate and a truly unsubsidised token price, the AI is possibly more expensive than me. And as a freelancer, from their perspective I really am not alive until they need me. (This is what it often feels like)
The reality is the human and the AI aren't used to build the same things anyway so it's a comparison you can't really make.
Brains are efficient, but civilized humans aren't. In the USA, adults consume at a rate of about 10kW -- only 1-2% of that being the human's metabolism, the rest being HVAC, electrical devices, etc.
For comparison, a modern frontier model like Gemini 3.5 Pro consumes about 15kW -- so only about 1.5x the fully loaded human. In an 8h workday, that model would crank through ~80M tokens (~$5k at API prices). That's ~4 major refactors of a 10k LOC codebase, so probably not a very realistic comparison to a single human dev.
I think a more useful comparison, based on my experience, is that an engineer with AI support can get one 8h day's worth of unassisted work done in 1h. So, the 25 kWh consumed during collaboration (conservatively assuming I keep the GPU hot for the whole hour) frees up the remaining 70 kWh I'll draw down for the day to be spent in some other way.
The blurring of US state and corporate espionage in the EU is the stuff of legend. They have always spied, and you can easily make the case that in late 1980s/early 1990s Europe they had good reason to, because European businesses were corrupt.
Not sure why anyone in the EU thinks the US is not a significant espionage risk. Adding any major US supplier would have been a significant espionage risk until really recently.
Before the EU cleaned up Europe's act pretty considerably on corruption, US companies used corporate but also state-level espionage actors to level the playing field against a culture of bribes and they were fairly open about it. They absolutely needed to do it, because of the potential penalties back home if they engaged in bribery abroad.
The tables have turned, now. The EU runs much more cleanly than decisionmaking in DC, which is clearly corrupted and lubricated with cash and opportunities for failsons and faildaughters; it has accelerated radically quite recently but it was heading that way from the first Bush era.
But I'd bet the corporate-state merger of industrial espionage is in full flow.
This would require active participation by people inside Anthropic and OpenAI. Given how generally ideological the people working in these companies are, I'd be willing to bet that we would already be reading Snowden-style leaks if it were true.
I have zero expectation that a similar culture exists inside Chinese companies. If you think these corporate and national cultures are the same, you need to adjust your priors.
> This would require active participation by people inside Anthropic and OpenAI.
Not necessarily of the companies themselves, though; just embedded people at the right hiring level.
> Given how generally ideological the people working in these companies are
History has many examples of truly surprising spies, over the long term. Including in highly ideological environments such as animal rights and eco-campaigning groups. The embedded police spying scandals in the UK make this clear.
It is naïve to think that there are no CIA or NSA employees in some functional role at these two businesses, just as it is naïve to think that they don't have intelligence industry contacts playing them because they are naïve. You only have to look at how the NSA weakened open cryptography to see that two companies staffed by young, absurdly rich people barely out of college with wobbly moral e/acc compasses might be getting played by homegrown spooks.
> I have zero expectation that a similar culture exists inside Chinese companies. If you think these corporate and national cultures are the same, you need to adjust your priors.
I suggested absolutely nothing of the sort — I flatly was not talking about China at all.
FWIW it cuts both ways: in the dim and distant past of the early dot-com era, I remember encountering someone who wafted inexplicably between US and UK multinational companies who I thought was possibly British intelligence. An odd duck for sure.
It won in my house/my business right from the start. (Well, open weights, at least — which is an uncomfortable nuance.)
I have never understood the willingness to make the functioning of or development of a product so completely dependent on the secret sauce of one of two big unprofitable, inscrutable startups.
It really defies sensible engineering principles to do that. So I was never going to do it. I'm exploring AI now but because I have decided that open weights make it a good use of my time.
It's bad enough that any given business often ends up beholden to a single payment platform and the policies of two US credit card providers.
I guess it is the freelancer in me but I always feel nervous when I am asked to put so much energy into studying or learning someone's product, rather than the underlying technology. I still remember the days when Microsoft was pretty much lobbying academic departments with promises of access to the NT source code. I remember a senior figure in our own saying that Linux was a sideshow and access to NT would make us relevant.
More control over destiny is always necessary, and I remind myself and others that the "state of the art" is behind the "cutting edge". Progress is made at the cutting edge, but there is risk of damage. Engineering should focus on building on the state of the art, not on hitching a ride on someone else's progress.
I feel like "open source" in this context is, as you say, an uncomfortable nuance; the tooling (llama.cpp, et al) is open but useless without weights.
The weights are extraordinarily expensive "capital" that is donated by big organizations who are all at war with each other.
I don't know that it will ever be possible for, for instance, archive.org, to make truly open weights. And, other than archive.org, I can't imagine any other "open source" organization (freebsd? apache?) being in any position at all to make truly open weights.
Maybe governments, government organizations, or universities.
None of whom are currently funded, mandated, inclined, or particularly interested in dumping the money into buying the infrastructure needed to make weights.
Yes. The weights war is a much more aggressive war than the war of OSS donations.
In the OSS donations war (Visual Studio Code being a really fascinating example of it) you could see that the taps can't be turned off so easily. Whatever is donated can be built upon forever.
I think there will come a point, soon enough, where open weights models are capable enough that even if they stagnate, they can be augmented with tooling that essentially keeps them current. Maybe we are there now?
But the risk of the taps being turned off is not negligible.
My own feeling is that governments will ultimately ask consortia of universities to train open weights models and support them financially in doing so.
(And for what it is worth, I think diffusion text models are likely to trigger a hardware arms race that makes this possible)
In much the same way that they used to do that for the supercomputer race, which we just don't hear about right now!
Interestingly, I've taken a different approach. AI supplements how my business builds and I'd much rather have all my engineers using Opus 4.8 rather than whatever the best open source models are.
I believe open source is important, but for my business I'm just going to use the best tools I have available to me.
As a business decision it makes sense if you think that spilling out agent-written code to meet some profitable objective is a race you can win?
I know I can't win that race or outspend the competition. So I have to rely on my instinct that in my area of business, people becoming dependent on agent-written code are getting further and further out of their depth, and that slow and steady will win the race. I am going to spend the time trying to integrate the open source tools into the way I work. (I am still working on this; frankly I may have bigger problems on an individual level than they can solve)
To be maximally clear, if this two-inscrutable-megacorps model does survive, and it becomes how everyone works over even the medium term, I'll have to quit tech.
I will probably retire early and just plan for a shorter, quieter life that ends when I am out of money, because like everyone else I won't be able to afford a longer one.
I don't want that "nobody prompts now, we just specify loops" bullshit for myself and I don't want what it will do to me for anyone I love.
Open source and open weights have to win for human culture's sake but in the short term for the sake of the culture of tech work. We need control over how we use these tools, not just to be steered down whichever channel makes the most money for Dario and Sam.
Did the Biden administration do that off their own backs or was that an extension/compromise of the action of a Republican-held Congress that is, for example, unreasonably jumpy about RISC-V?
I think there is good reason to consider that frontier models might cross the ITAR threshold, actually. Not least because of the risk that they can simply blurt out knowledge that already does. If ITAR exists, an AI that might know how to contravene it could be a problem, because no existing legal framework or threat of punishment will cause it to keep secrets.
But I don't think you can ignore that the two big AI companies were pushing for that judgement because it would benefit them commercially if open weights AI was regulated.
> But I don't think you can ignore that the two big AI companies were pushing for that judgement because it would benefit them commercially if open weights AI was regulated.
This doesn't matter in this context, NVIDIA didn't push for restrictions for example but they got it anyway. So AI companies would get restrictions either way.
This happens a lot. Even I as a foreigner understand that Trump is routinely at odds with what long-standing cautious Republicans and right-leaning "national security Democrats" think is in the national security interest. They want the long term picture; he has no long-term perspective at all and wants the bargaining chip.
There was solid bipartisan border policy in 2024 that would have enacted strong border controls, for example — legislation Biden was very willing to sign, but Trump got Republicans who had argued for it to kill it off because he wanted to run against "open borders", not strong border controls. He wanted the advantage with voters.
Trump reversing export controls that sensible Republicans wanted for decades is not at all surprising when you consider just how utterly desperate he is to be friends with Xi (and how easily manipulated by Xi he is). Again, he thinks being able to open and close that tap himself is his own personal leverage.
I agree that in this case the calls for restrictions are coming from the corporate world. Because they want government support for anti-corporate-espionage measures.
New Labour wasn't a consistently left-wing government, was it? Or they'd have banned FOBTs, not profiteered off them to an extent that they ruined a generation of people.
Why would you think nationalising is a violent process?
As soon as the nation owns enough stock to profit from government decisions (and to compound the influence of those decisions) you essentially have a partially nationalised business.
10% of OpenAI might easily be enough to reach a meaningful "partially nationalised" threshold, once you factor in any holdings in federal pension plans and the active level of government policymaking.
It is very clear Sam Altman wants this, too, because this whole "take 10%" thing in Trump's mind was his idea back in early 2025, and OpenAI have been following up on it recently.
No they didn’t. After Trump started making noise about their CEO, Lip-bu Tan, being Chinese they then took the shares at a “…discount to the current market price.”[1]
And the money for this _deal_ was primarily from the CHIPS act funds they were already awarded but had not been sent to them yet
> Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded but not paid, and $3.2 billion will come from separate government awards under a program to make secure chips.[1]
This was at gunpoint from the government’s monopoly on violence.
The government had passed a law appropriating funds to subsidize semiconductor manufacturing in the US and spent some of it buying intel stock. How is that the government seizing Intel at gunpoint? I mean aside from the libertarian argument that the taxation necessary to raise those funds is theft?
Trump has already (with Altman directly egging him on) talked about the US taking a share in (i.e. partially nationalising) the AI companies. Has he not called a meeting about this next week?
reply