If their agents take over the world, then they don't need to worry about going public. Dividends for the current share holders!

It also prevents those storms from dissipating the energy. So once the jet stream moves north again, bigger than otherwise storms will happen.

Or they've fully vested and either have no desire to make even more money or were not offered enough to keep them around.

> We finished the rewrite in two months. > racing towards a deadline imposed by external factors so we all ended up working a lot of hours.

2 months of 80 hour weeks is 4 months of regular weeks. Can you clarify how many hours your team was putting in? And how large was your team?

Probably averaging 70. 9 devs and 1 QA engineer.

Assuming the LLM never got anything wrong or otherwise had to be re-prompted, that means your devs were reviewing 130 SLOC per hour, on what was described as moderately greenfield (examining new implementations rather than comparing to old historical accidents).

How?

I don't want to sound flippant, but if the point is to add human thought to the mix, that's a high review rate even when examining small tweaks to an existing, working product, even with substantial AI help to pre-filter major gotchas before you bother spending a lot of human effort on the review. That's only 20-30wpm, but a review isn't just scanning or reading code, especially if you're trying to figure out how a new system which doesn't run yet will fit together.

> Assuming the LLM never got anything wrong or otherwise had to be re-prompted, that means your devs were reviewing 130 SLOC per hour,

It's possible, I think, but humans cannot do repetitive mental work (like reviewing code) constantly without atrophy.

Can I review 130 SLoC/hour? Sure. Can I do it 80 hours a week? No. Not even a single 8-hour workday.

Is that actually a high review rate? Especially if you know the language and domain. Sure, initially there's a learning curve for a new codebase structure, but lots of lines will also be trivial and many changes might also be similar to each other.

For small separate changes in isolation then maybe it's ok? But not for whole days 8 hours each.

But then you need to watch for bugs coming from interaction with previous changes and in 700k loc that might be nontrivial. How do you know which states are reachable and which are not? That takes time.

It only takes a botched condition here (forgot a "not"? swapped "and"/"or"?), a swapped variable name there, code that looks ok, but isn't.

No don’t worry they said it’s not slop because there’s tests lol

Isn't this best explained by inflation. It seems like this implies that inflation adjusted GDP/energy remained pretty constant

Those numbers are in units of "Consumption per Real Dollar of GDP", which is defined as follows: "Calculated as energy consumption divided by U.S. gross domestic product in chained (2017) dollars".

I don't know exactly what it meant by "chained", although from the context it does sound as though it might mean something like "inflation adjusted".

I am getting more and more peeved by using GDP as a single number. Cost of existing, aka housing and healthy food, skyrocketed compared to median income. But hey, the tech got cheaper.

> I don't know exactly what it meant by "chained"

It does mean they tried to eliminate inflation as a factor. In my experience though the basket of goods used for inflation calculations do a poor job representing the majority of consumers' and businesses' costs.

Then there would never be a reason not to list "may contain sesame". Just like every product causes cancer in california.

The door to one of the hospitals in SF has a prop 16 warning. Even hospitals give you cancer!

PG-13 didn't exist in 1981. It went straight from PG to R. So less loosening of restrictions, and more adding gradation.

And in 1981 PG movies had tits.

Airplane (1980) was PG.

It's bizarre because tits are the first thing everybody sees

At the time, I was of an age and disposition to notice.

It's a widespread stereotype at least: https://xkcd.com/793/

I don't understand the desire to remove Levent. "Off the clock, when Anthropic engineers want to break new ground, they use ChatGPT" sounds like a great ad.

All these small details will be forgotten in less than a year. But association "Navier-Stokes -- OpenAI" will be part of the history. In my opinion, they are thinking about long term PR here.

That association seems like it will survive the actual names of the authors, regardless of who they are. But I'm not a marketing person.

Buying 3 different sizes of a shirt because manufacturers refuse to standardize on sizing information and returning 2/3 of them seems like a standard practice for buying clothes online. Not sure why you think the stores don't account for the returns.