> During the first 24 hours of the war, the US military struck more than 1,000 targets in Iran with the help of AI, as the Palantir software recommended 42 targets per hour.
Impressive, although this could lead to collateral damage. I hope Maven won't turn against its creators someday.
We saw this in Gaza with the IDF's use of "Lavender" and "Where's Daddy". The IDF dehumanized their opponents to the point that, if a computer said "Kill", they didn't ask questions.
Soldiers are supposed to be liable for carrying out illegal orders, even if given by an AI. It's disturbing that nobody has been held accountable for bombing a school so far. The U.S. military's approach to investigating their own is apparently similar to that of the IDF.
---------------
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila." -- Mitch Ratcliffe
---------------
This quote is now badly out of date. A computer running an AI and an unquestioning human flying a bomber now vastly outstrip what handguns and tequila are capable of. Just wait until autonomous drones are used to cut humans out of the loop entirely!
Because most people either don't know how to use it (multiple reasons, that ai itself can help them solve) or don't have the right mindset going into it (deeper work needed)
I don't have time for that. I'd rather pay the subscription fee so that the AI will be friends with other people on my behalf, thus freeing me up to grind, gym, and golf.
There’s actually already an app for that, and I’m not even joking.
edit: I was going to link a specific one I found a few weeks ago, but it turns out there are tons of them now, so I’ll just explain the idea. Most of these apps are basically reminder tools disguised as simple little games. A common example is a flower garden. Each “flower” represents a friend, and you keep the flower alive by staying in touch. That might mean sending a message or planning a hangout. If you don’t, the flower wilts, just like a real one would without care.
API is intended for massive scaled operations (companies) and has no hard usage limits, a subscription is intended only for individual usage (solo dev) and has therefore hard usage limits. Is it that difficult to grasp the difference between API and subscription models?
If it wasn't the case, the Claude API pricing would be the same, $200 for unlimited use. But it's metered.
We don't know if Claude Code bleeds money for every user that touches it. Probably not. But the different pricing is a strong enough clue that it's an appeal product with subsidized tokens consumption.
API is intended for a different audience - companies with a big pocket who aren't as price sensitive as private users. So the pricing will be different than for a private subscription.
There is huge value in getting people to subscribe to recurring payments. Giving people a discount to do so makes sense and does not mean that the subscription service loses money.
I'm baffled how people don't seem intellectually able to grasp what you described here. Claude Code users on Anthropic subscriptions aren't subsidizing those using other harnesses because usage limits aren't counted on the harness layer. It's an anti-competitive move against vc-backed commercial harnesses like Opencode (vc-backed) or Openclaw (openai-affiliated).
I don’t think they’re targeting the C suite with it, because they don’t use uv and Microsoft already has Copilot for the “it’s bad but bundled with stuff you’re already paying for” market.
reply