Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I think when chinese models figure out how to partner with SOC 2 providers in the USA in a way that offers a $20-$100-$200 subscription is an easy convenient way, anthropic and open ai will be screwed.by daft_pink
- You mean 2, 10 and 20? Otherwise at the same price I'm going with big 2by mi_lk
- If you look at Anthropic's blogs about their model timelines, there is roughly a ~3m period between a model being in internal preview until release. That means that inside of Anthropic, the next version beyond Mythos/Fable is already in preview, already being tested internally. Despite what Geohot is describing here about GLM, my understanding is that Anthropic employees have spent a significant amount of time grappling with a technology that is considerably ahead of what is available to the public today.
In addition, if you look at the graph of LOC written by Claude vs Ants (I.e. AI vs human), there is an incredibly sharp uptick post-Mythos internal preview. Something like from 30% to 75% of code inside the company being written by AI.
While I sympathize with the viewpoint here, I still have to admit that that there's a very different feeling to working inside of a company where they've had months of time with a model that's at the frontier, quickly changing the way everyone around them works, and that _they themselves_ control the keys to.
If Geohot had those keys, I can be 100% confident he'd be raising the alarm at the top of his lungs about it.
by aabhay - I mean, my company is also having internal test release before going out. That is just a normal process.by watwut
- If the March leak of Claude Code was Mythos / Fable in preview ... I'm not sure I'm that worried about AI capabilities.
Seriously -- if you dig through that source code, and then listen to the messaging, it seems hard to keep a straight face.
Also, hasn't this company been claiming that almost all their code is written with AI for significantly longer than "post-Mythos internal preview"?
by mccoyb - Simple minds want to believe one simple thing and then rationalize everything else to force consistency with that one simple idea.
If you want to believe the simple idea that AI is mostly hype, then you'll get stuck in a multi-year loop talking about stochastic parrots, ridiculous valuations, and doomer scaredycats.
But the real world isn't so simple. Multiple seemingly contradictory things can be true at the same time.
Some AI is useless. Some is incredibly powerful and useful even though it makes mistakes. Some companies are wildly overvalued. Some extremely large and expensive companies will quadruple from here. Some frightening scenarios will look silly in hindsight. Other frightening things will happen that none of the doomers foresee.
It would be great to explore those new ideas and possibilities.
It's so boring rehashing the same old tired and worn out ideas like "they're just hyping the danger to pump their shares up."
by panarky - I love this website because people will write stuff like “I believe the hype because my brain is big, ‘believing the hype’ is actually very complex and cannot be embraced by lesser intellects”by jrflowers
- > Some AI is useless. Some is incredibly powerful... It would be great to explore those new ideas and possibilities.
I agree, but it's not so mysterious what will win out. Even if the criticism is repeated so often, that's because much of it is still valid.
LLMs are not AGI. A statistical model of language helps fill in gaps. This is super useful for new and much improved UI/UX ideas that converge with better accessibility. Similar is true for generating images, video, audio, etc. There are situations where it's the right tool for expressing an idea.
What we need is a sense of maturity. The limitations are very clear to everyone now, and we're already past the disillusionment. If we can rein in the abuse, there should be a good path forward. The technology is already boring and that's a very good sign.
by sublinear - What you have written does not seem to be in close contact with the OP. He talks positively about the GLM news and whatnot. He is highly skeptical only of the "doom" scenarios, including upending most or a massive amount of jobs, and how that is deployed to keep the investment machine working at such breakneck pace.by dundarious
- Some AI is useless
The question is not whether AI is useful. It is useful, full stop.
The question is whether AI is useful enough to justify valuations that dwarf the GDP of all but the top 20 countries in the world. As it stands right now, it's not even close! The leaked OpenAI financials put these AI companies in the same profitability territory as utilities, with zero justification for these crazy valuations.
by chongli - > Remember when everyone died during COVID? And when we finally ended racism during DEI? Can someone write an AI 2027 (...)
Oh no, the obvious strawmans that - despite the author's assertions - people did not actually widely believe in, were strawmans? Crazy, I tell you. It'd seem that people aren't actually as dumb as the author likes to characterize them being.
Sure love this genre of writing. It's a beautifully revealing tour de force in projection and narcissism. "Will somebody please think for all the fools who believe in the obvious nonsense I secretly fear?"
by perching_aix - I was hoping for more analysis here :\ like from a technical standpoint, why is the doom and gloom incorrect? I've heard some really interesting arguments for that, and non of them are here.
- I think the counter arguments to doom are more social and economic. If we make AI smarter than ourselves it's likely people will still have jobs/income and a higher standard of living in the same way that in invention of the tractor didn't lead to millions of unemployed potato diggers and a potato tycoon with a million tons of spare potatoes.by tim333
- What's the evidence that the doom narrative is connected to valuations? It seems more like a marketing/recruiting strategy. As the post points out, institutional investors generally think the idea of mass unemployment is BS, and they are investing accordingly.by _23sd
- Dumb thing to ask tbh.
Dangerous new tech with military applications sounds harder to ignore than AI that spits out text.
- I came to the same conclusion.
Specifically Anthropic's whole PR has all been about danger, safety, doomerism all to make themselves indirectly more important and central to the debate.
Calling meetings in Washington DC in order to let everyone know they made a cyberweapon is part of those PR moves. Then they seem surprised lawmakers actually called them out and asked to stop serving that model.
I know this is the cynical take but I cannot unsee the elephant in the room: This doomerism allowed Anthropic to be the center of every AI conversation right now. Their market cap and upcoming IPO is indirectly benefiting from this.
I also cannot take that Anthropic while letting everyone know that Doom is coming (or is already here), are also the ones that want to decide who can profit from this Doomerism. This is how every benevolent dictators start.
by siren2026 - > This is how every benevolent dictators start.
Every dictator is benevolent for the people that agree with them.
by _carbyau_ - > This is how every benevolent dictator starts
I don’t think “benevolent” is necessary in that sentence. It’s how many non-benevolent dictatorships started.
- > Can someone write an AI 2027 but instead of some totalizing doom propaganda it talks about the bubble unwinding and what we can do to prevent this kind of crap in the future? How do we build an economy and society that’s sustainable?
I imagine tons of people have written that article. But no one reads it. They're all busy with the doomiest bullshit Facebook or Tiktok will serve them. It's what gets engagement.
No one is clicking on the "None of the things your scared of are scary and here's why" video when it's up against the "$x is the end of the world and will eat your children" agitprop.
by jmye - Yea, the "doom trolling" seems to be starting to reach its limit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/opinion/ai-dangerous-open...
by cootsnuck - Can you share a non-paywalled version? Wayback machine doesn't seem to have this.by overlord1109
- Even if Dario and Altman originally believed what they were saying, their scaretactics worked wonders for investment. Their companies are now incredibly incentivized to keep the AI Apocalypse narrative going further and further. It is hard to imagine them stopping, as that may lose them investment.
The last 10 years have been a decade of Big Tech Vaporware. NFTs and the Metaverse were assured to be the future. Once this narrative fails too (which I am almost certain is inevitable) I think society's love affair with Technology being the solver-of-all-things will finally fracture.
by soundworlds - > will finally fracture.
If true, it will only be replaced with something else. With what is anyone’s guess.
by rockwotj - > NFTs and the Metaverse
AI is not that bad
by anuramat - I think technology can actually solve a lot more things than it has, the problem is that foundational problem solving does not make a unicorn startup with earthshaking economies of scale in most cases, and especially so if there's a physical world piece involved, and even more so if it's going to go asymptotic.
Just to throw out a random example - could technology, in terms of advances and improvements to allocation, distribution, and consumption, play a part in solving the western US's water issues? Probably. But would it be something that make a trillion dollars and a household name? Maybe not. And could saner policy, like making farmers have to bid for acre feet instead of getting it for basically free + distribution cost also help? Sure.
Likewise, even with AI most software is still crap. Like when have you heard about a doctor who loves their EHR? Like never.
So I think technology could be a solver of at least a lot more things. But we've created a market where people want to exhaust every flavor of flim flam and trend of the moment first. Because we've glorified the business of tech more than the actual improvements and aspirations that should be possible.
by Glyptodon - I have never understood this line of thinking. Why would a company warn that their technology is dangerous if it wasn't? Looking at the ongoing Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits. If you assume AGI is possible, you must agree that it would be at the very least profoundly destabilizing. The companies are built around this assumption.by ajyoon
- You could also turn this around: Why would a company put up warnings about their product, or at least more than they're legally obligated to. The tobacco and social media industries certainly didn't go "this product has the risk to do great harm, but we also believe in its potential, so we'll go with a responsible approach".
The only examples of companies voluntarily putting up warnings I can think of are those obviously tongue-in-cheek warnings "this book/game/series may cause addiction because it's just so good" etc.
by xg15 - When the U.S. first legalized pharmaceutical ads on TV, one of the requirements was that the drug companies had to disclose side effects during the ads. The companies chafed at that, thinking it would make the drugs less appealing, and only included the bare minimum the rules required them to. But their own data eventually showed that consumers actually responded positively to hearing the side effects. They found that people think if a drug is powerful, it must also have strong side effects. So instead of just scaring them, it reassured them the product was good. After learning that, the drug makers started including more side effects in the ads than they were required to.by cainxinth
- A common line of logic would be that a company would never put a dangerous sticker on their product unless they absolutely have to by regulation. So if they do it, it absolutely means they see a benefit of doing it.
Also why do you think the Mythos thing is bad for profits? Anthropic hyped the model up too hard and didn't even have the compute to serve it properly to all users.
The export control issue has not affected Anthropic's revenue and only made its top of the line products seem far more impressive than they actually are. People don't think Nvidia is a bad company if the government puts export controls on their products.
For Anthropic, valuation and public perception is 100x more important before the IPO than revenue or profitablity.
by altmanaltman - >> Looking at the ongoing Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits
We must live in different planets. The whole episode about Mythos has been the absolute best free PR move ever designed. At this point everyone in tech assumes Anthropic and Mythos are the absolute best models. All of this got achieved without spending a single $$ in advertisement.
This model is also probably really dangerous, not denying that. But they definitely used it as a huge PR tool.
by siren2026