The costs are exorbitant and most software is not produced by companies with such a huge moat. Anthropic made a profit through their recent bait amd switch pricing. There is zero useful insights online to indicate whether this might die due to commoditisation with good enough open models or fail the race to get more people subsidising unsustainable growth with other people’s money. Who knows? In any case they dont seem to be able to drop usage costs so the business model seems based on wishes
> Stories are circulating of companies surprised at how expensive their LLM bills are becoming from usage by their staff
> Enterprise customers are now paying API prices
How long before enterprise customers start to question the bill? Anthropic goes from not making money to doing pricing shakeup, and now they are making money and the biggest spenders are shocked at prices.
Algorithms are also improving. I believe it's very unlikely for these two improvements together to not result in one to two orders of magnitude cheaper cost per "intelligence". Of course, that might just make use cases that are too expensive today viable and thereby increase usage further.
Yeah, it’s called supply and demand. Demand for memory went way up suddenly. Now supply is going up rapidly as companies try to cash in on that demand.
Supply will eventually catch up with demand. Then the prices will come back down.
A lot of the new hardware requires retrofitting existing datacenters for appropriate cooling, or is waiting to be installed because the new datacenters haven't been built yet. By the time they're installed it's likely a lot of Blackwell GPUs are going to be very out of date. Newer hardware is turning into huge capex bills along with the corresponding depreciation costs. Basically, it's not the same as plugging a new GPU into your desktop, the upfront investment is extremely expensive and all the numbers I'm seeing suggest that the newer GPUs are costing more to run, not less.
Costs will plummet as better hardware becomes available and priced reasonable so that people can more easily run their own open models locally. But that won't help Antropic/OpenAI make more money, quite the opposite.
I heard that soon after the extent of NSA's domestic surveillance programs were revealed to the public, at least one FAANG changed its US border-crossing policy to those used for countries known to tamper with your computers during border crossings. That is, bring a blank computer that you connect to the corporate VPN and load after you arrive at work on the far side of your trip, let IT wipe that computer before you travel back to the US (or just leave it behind), and assume that computer is compromised if it leaves your sight at a checkpoint for longer than it takes to run it through the x-ray scanner.
So, yeah, savvy companies have had these policies for like twenty years now.
Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. They also dont believe bolivian fishermen could reach the US with stocks of drugs, they dont believe venezuela’s president was a hidden drug kingpin, and they also dont believe that Cuba is a credible threat that needs to be blockaded to the stone age.
These are power plays to signal that world dominance is not decaying but in case of Iran it has backfired and pushes China’s narrative as a pillar of stability.
> After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already.
There are no "Israeli terrorists" in control of Israel's nuclear weapons, the government of Israel is certainly not controlled by terrorists like the Iranian government is.
Israel also does not have a policy of destroying Iran, while Iran does have a clear policy of destroying Israel[0].
There's a clear difference in their ideologies as well, the Islamic government of Iran clearly believes in dangerous ideologies like Martyrdom and Jihad(holy war), organizations with these sort of ideological beliefs should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons because typical deterrence strategies like mutually assured destruction are unlikely to be effective.
What is the definition of a terrorist and why does the destruction and genocide in Gaza not fall under that term? Cite your sources when you define terrorism, please.
> What is the definition of a terrorist and why does the destruction and genocide in Gaza not fall under that term?
There is certainly no genocide in Gaza, the destruction is clearly the end result of a war started by Hamas. In fact Hamas did have genocidal intent in their attacks on Oct 7th but did not have the military capability to carry out that intent. Israel on the other hand clearly has that military capability but not the intent.
> Cite your sources when you define terrorism, please.
There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Obviously that cause problems. [0]
"There is certainly no genocide in Gaza" -- you are directly contradicting a formal UN Commission of Inquiry finding from September 2025. This is not an opinion piece or a fringe report. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded after a two-year investigation that Israel committed four of the five genocidal acts defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and that genocidal intent was established through direct statements from Israeli leadership including the Prime Minister, President, and Defence Minister. Your claim that Israel lacks genocidal intent is directly contradicted by the Commission's finding that genocidal intent was "the only reasonable inference" from both the statements of Israeli leadership and the pattern of conduct of Israeli forces. [0]
You said there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. So let me use the official definition from the United States government.
The US State Department definition under 22 USC 2656f(d) defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." [1]
The US domestic terrorism statute under 18 USC 2331(5) defines it as activities that "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." [2]
You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post. By your own admission, you invoked a contested label selectively against one state while exempting another. That is a political preference dressed up as a principled argument, not anything of rigorous analysis.
Now apply that to Gaza. The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.
On Greater Israel, calling it "vague" does not explain away the fact that sitting members of the current Israeli government have explicitly stated their intent to annex Palestinian territory.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said at a Jerusalem Day rally four days ago: "The time has come to finally erase the lines that separate Areas A, B, and C. The entire Land of Israel is ours." He also declared the war "must end with the expansion of the borders of the State of Israel" and called on Netanyahu to order the IDF to prepare for "full occupation of the Gaza Strip" and establish Israeli settlements there. [3]
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir stated from the Temple Mount: "Conquer all of Gaza, declare sovereignty over the entire Strip, eliminate every Hamas member, and encourage voluntary emigration. This is the only way." [4]
These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.
You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.
> The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory
The UN(which is itself a party that has perpetuated the conflict through mismanagement of the UNRWA) has essentially zero credibility in regard to anything involving Israel[0].
> You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post.
The Iranian government is engaged in both direct and indirect terrorism throughout the region by virtually all commonly used definitions including the ones you listed. They have directly attacked virtually all countries in the region. They are driven by dangerous ideologies of Martyrdom and Jihad.
> The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.
A highly biased UN commission claiming something doesn't actually make it true.[1] Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, although in a war there is often collateral damage. This is why properly analyzing intent is so important.
> These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.
Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are highly unpopular in Israel and have been largely excluded from making war related decisions, Israel has a parliamentary system of government which makes it easier for extremists to get elected than in a system of government like the United States, their statements should certainly not be taken as official Israeli government policy.
> You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Legally they are not a party to the NPT[2]. From a practical standpoint they are a small country facing existential threats to their existence so it's not surprising they would want to have nuclear weapons as a deterrence.
"Satan" as in the original meaning of the word "adversary of god". They are not calling you Satan as a way to say evil, but as a way to say "adversary of our faith".
> Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons.
Then why were they enriching uranium to levels well above what is needed for civilian purposes? You simply don't do that unless you intend to make nuclear weapons at some point.
> Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that.
Iran obviously has the ability to lie, and regularly does so.
Many countries have nuclear power without any enrichment capability. Iran could try not being a pariah state and buy enriched uranium like many countries do. The only real reason to spend so much money and endure so much hardships for uranium enrichment is if they wanted at least the option to make nuclear weapons.
There is still lots of evidence that Iran started enriching uranium towards weapons grade over the past decade. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 Largely a legacy of Trump's sanctions failing to get a nuclear deal the first term and back firing. You'd have to be naive to think they don't want a bomb in the first place before that though.
Saddam played the same game where they pretended they just wanted nuclear for energy, even though they were a petrol state... which is why in 1981 Iran helped bomb Iraq's reactors (where Iran teamed up with Israel to do so) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
If Iran didn't believe Iraq's peaceful nuclear intentions, I'm not sure why anyone would believe Iran then buying tons of uranium from Russia was any different. Not to mention building underground lairs to enrich it while also building ICBMs.
The best way to thread the needle I can see was that maintaining highly enriched uranium was a deterrance/bargaining strategy. Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.
> Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.
The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. It was a reasonable assumption that the US would honor its side of the agreement under the doctrine of continuity. Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith
Iran really had no need for a nuke in the first place if they weren't constantly provoking the entire region, unless that need is destroying Israel.
> Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith
Iran never really negotiates in good faith either, the JCPOA didn't really do anything at all to restrict their ballistic missile program and terrorist proxies.
“This stockpile could potentially enable Iran to construct as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it choose to weaponize its program, Grossi told The Associated Press last year.”
Most of these are either things they believe wont affect them or will affect them in the future. This is not a common behavior for things that will affect them immediately amd I have yet to see someone pass on a promotion because they thought someone else was better
Yes, they also have transmitters. The traffic lights send out MAPEM and SPATEM messages. They describe the layout of the lanes at the intersection as well as the red/green phase timings of the signal.
In Graz, the city where the authors live, there are 165 of such signals planned.
I recently visited the facility near Angor Wat Cambodia. Its a facility with a lot of promotional matetial and have greatbway of presentong themselves. I had a demo presentation with a rat doing demining so some observations:
The rats are big. The idea is that they smell mines and are more useful than dogs since they are less than 5kg which detonates the mines. They are also better than human since they can smell old mines that are under soil or plants after so many decades. Unfortunate that is very labor intensive since there are two people escorting each rat and handle it with tethers.
For those reasons their effectiveness is limited.
A few km up the same road is the Cambodian Landmine Museum that has a couple of demo gardens where one can spectacularly fail find Lamdimes Found like 10 amd they were like one hundred, 2 right next to me…. Unfortunately that place which is run by a person called Aki Ra although having done a lot more work gets less financing.
There are two such mechanisms proposed. Ambivalence theory that says you can both like and dislike something at the same time e.g. smoking. Cognitive dissonance is that you like as you are supposed to like according to your teachings and and upbringing which might not be fully in sync your real neural response e.g. liking famous people when they might be crap.
reply