D0m || CalyxNZ retweeted
Replying to @elonmusk
Sometimes I wonder when Elon Musk actually sleeps.
Look at everything happening around his companies.
SpaceX is developing rockets and expanding space infrastructure.
Starlink is providing satellite internet around the world, including critical communications for Ukraine.
Tesla is pushing autonomous driving, robotaxis and humanoid robotics.
xAI is building artificial intelligence and the computing infrastructure needed to support it.
Neuralink is developing brain-computer interfaces.
And somehow, Musk is still in the middle of political arguments involving Ukraine, Russia and governments around the world.
My take: You don't have to agree with Elon Musk on everything to recognize the extraordinary amount of technological development happening across his companies.
My read: Some projects are delivering results today. Others still have major technical, financial and regulatory hurdles to overcome.
But here's what gets lost in the political noise.
Building rockets, satellite networks, AI infrastructure, autonomous vehicles and advanced robotics requires enormous investment, engineering and coordination.
Those achievements deserve to be judged on their actual results.
Bottom line: Criticize Musk when the evidence supports criticism. Give him credit when his companies accomplish something significant.
Neither admiration nor political disagreement should replace the facts.
How many people could oversee this many ambitious projects at once? 🇺🇸
D0m || CalyxNZ retweeted
Day 7/
We have increased default context length for GPT-6.1 Sol to 500k when used through Codex & Work, up from 272k or an ~ 80% increase.
We will go higher in the future, but it helps reduce occurrence of compactions and with tasks that require keeping a lot of context and nuance over periods of time. It was carefully tested and is the new sweet spot for most of our users. You can still override it if you want to be higher our lower, with maximum context length of GPT-6.1 Sol of 1M.
Please welcome GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna to the GPT-6 universe.
GPT-6 Sol and Luna build on the advances behind GPT-6 Astra, bringing much of its strengths into faster and more affordable models to support work at scale.
We’ve also made caching and inference more efficient, and we’re passing the savings directly to you: 50% lower API prices for Sol and Luna compared with GPT‑5.6 promotional pricing.
Has anyone tried testing asimovs laws of robotics in Minecraft with AI bots and players? 🤔
"A bot-player may not injure a human-player or, through inaction, allow a human-player to come to harm."
D0m || CalyxNZ retweeted
I'm out of Codex usage until the 19th and having a very bad time because of it
D0m || CalyxNZ retweeted
Having kids makes it possible to be genuinely optimistic about what the future holds.
🤖 Made with AI
D0m || CalyxNZ retweeted
Ass Bench Update 🚨
After running GPT 6 Astra in a loop for the past week, with a couple of steers a day, we have officially reached high-fidelity cheeks.
I’m going to let this thing run in a self-improving cycle for as long as I can and see where the ass technology ends up in a month.
Lots of different butt styles will be added, so no one is safe.
Not even you, Granny.
You’ll also be able to support the project and help fund the benching of other models like Fable, Gemini, etc.
All it takes is a buck, and you can slap your sticker + website directly onto a cheek.
The future of AI benchmarking is here
More Soon
D0m || CalyxNZ retweeted
We will give one banked reset for every day you don't have access to Astra on your paid ChatGPT plan, starting today. Team is moving mountains to give access as fast as we can.
First one will land in ~ 3 hours. There is still time to create your account if you don't have one.
D0m || CalyxNZ retweeted
On tokens and prices per token.
I said I’d write more about this, so here goes: an OpenAI token != another model’s token. We compare AI prices in dollars per million tokens as if a token were a standardized unit, like a gram or a kilowatt-hour. It isn’t. Different models use and produce the exact same text using different numbers of tokens, which means a lower price per token does not necessarily mean a lower bill.
Imagine two identical pizzas. One is cut into 8 slices at $2 each. The other is cut into 16 slices at $1.25 each. The second place advertises cheaper slices, but the whole pizza costs $20 instead of $16. Bummer ... your stomach doesn't actually care about the number of slices you just ate.
I know you are hungry now, but back to tokens. In one small comparison spanning English, technical, multilingual, and numerical text, the tokenizer we use for GPT-5.6 Sol used 766 tokens versus an estimated 1,170 for Claude Opus 5. That's a very significant difference of about 34.5% fewer tokens. You can get the same exact text, but pay for all those extra tokens. The price per token doesn't really tell this story.
Even correcting for tokenizer differences misses the bigger point. What actually matters is price per successful outcome, and for that you can use benchmarks as a starting point, but really you have to try it and measure on your own use cases.
That's all. May the tokens flow.
Interesting exchange
Replying to @DarioAmodei
2/2 Second, on the messaging around AI. I do not agree that my messaging has been disproportionately negative. In fact it has been about equally balanced between risks and benefits: I’ve written one major essay about each, and even in interviews where I discuss the risks, I make sure to frequently mention the incredible benefits as well as proposing possible solutions to the risks (short clips from my interviews that end up on social media tend to be disproportionately negative, as that gets clicks). In fact, I wrote Machines of Loving Grace because I didn’t feel the AI industry was painting an inspiring enough picture of how the technology could radically transform the world for the better. The bulk of the essay is devoted to refuting skepticism of AI’s potential in health and biology, and showing why I think it will actually be possible to cure most human disease in ~5-10 years, as crazy as it may sound to ordinary people and frankly to biologists as well (I used to be one!). And, if you read my most recent essay (Policy on the AI Exponential), I discuss concrete proposals for how to streamline the FDA process to make sure the deluge of AI-accelerated drugs isn’t slowed down by the regulatory process. I feel the urgency here: I lost my father to Hepatitis C only a few years before the development of direct-acting antivirals (sofosbuvir), which cure 95% of patients and probably would have cured him.
I do agree that the public has a negative view of AI (and that this is a big problem), but I don’t think it is primarily caused by me or any other AI leader warning about AI’s risks. I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. The causes of this go back decades and AI is just the latest iteration of it. I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is more a cliche than it is inspiring, and most people think it is deceptive. The thing that will work is *actually curing cancer*. I think by far the most accurate criticism of AI companies including Anthropic is that we haven’t yet delivered on our big promises to benefit the world. That is totally on us, and I think it’s the criticism you should be making, instead of all this stuff about messaging and marketing.
We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. But until then I don’t want to make empty promises, and in the meantime I feel compelled to speak honestly about the very real risks of AI and how to address them. Honesty is the right thing on the merits, and in terms of public credibility and trust it is no worse than, and may in fact be better than, an approach that ignores or distracts from risks which people instinctively understand are real.



















