i have trouble understanding these situations, e.g. the AI itself would presumably make the suggestion to write a python script for such a task. It seems to me that there two huge problems right now
* understanding which category of problems an LLM is an appropriate solution for (rather than throwing LLMs at any and all problems)
* matching model capability (and therefore cost) to the problem at hand. You can easily overspend massively by using a model that's too powerful
not sure one would expect huge revenue increases from these internal tools, but maybe dramatic cost savings? Surely a lot of corporate processes could be automated?
That's been the dream for the 40 years I've been paying attention. And in that time, I've seen plenty of incremental changes but never the kind of sudden sea change that the hype machine anticipates.
The perennial reality is that automation is inherently inflexible, so there's only so much of it that you can do before you've committed a huge strategic blunder by making your business resistant to change and severely curtailing its ability to cope with situations that don't cleanly fit the mold. So then we need to hack in ways to deal with the exceptions, but, since they're hacked in, they're often painful and time consuming. Sometimes so much so that after the new process stabilizes it turns out to be even more cumbersome and require more manual effort than the system it replaced.
When anyone other than a technologist suggests doing that kind of thing, we call it "bureaucracy", and we hate it. I think maybe what we have trouble seeing is that there's actually a pretty fundamental difference between automating purely technical processes like server deployment, and automating processes that are fundamentally about mediating human interactions.
I'm still not entirely clear on the problem <-> capability matching. E.g. it seems like Kimi K2.6 with good context would already be able to solve a huge chunk of problems. What share of prompts require frontier models?
not just renewables, also massive nuclear capacity and huge modern coal plants. They can really crank up capacity if they want to. How long will it take to get a new nuclear power plant operational in the US?
I agree with that too. Whilst we here in the "Land Down Under" (Australia) seem to have a fixation on NOT wanting to go down the nuclear energy route and we seem rather keen on tearing down our last remaining coal-fired power stations and 'trying' to rely on so-called renewables. From direct experience, our energy costs have gone through the roof and regardless of what our 'wonderful' politicians tell us, that is not going to change any time soon. We seem to want to just give our uranium to USA, Japan, France, and South Korea so they can make cheap energy, whilst we send our best coal to Japan, China & India. Go figure...
if the unit economics are broken (strong competition from other proprietary model providers + open weight models; LLM token race to the bottom) it's not clear how high revenue growth translates to high profits. These companies are valued like monopolists, but the competitive dynamics make them more akin to tomato sauce makers. I understand that the technology is pretty amazing and can lead to significant productivity gains, but from a business perspective, the question is how much of that value Antrophic and others can capture over time.
reply