>>>This is why we’re releasing Pion today. Pion is available as a research preview. If you have an existing business or an interesting business idea you want to hand off to AI, please sign up on our waitlist to get access. We’re excited to run many more businesses, and through them, contribute significantly more insights on frontier model capabilities.

Why on God's earth why?

Can't you just unleash your AI to "create existing or interesting business ideas" firstplace?

They can't. Nor can OpenAI or Anthropic. If they could create real economic value using their models, they would. Replacing coders is the best they got. Or solving super niche mathematical conjectures.

To be fair, that's a huge cost reduction and economic boon.

And the labor potential of an individual coder has also jumped tremendously.

These two simultaneous effects will have a massive impact on economic productivity.

It's happening to graphics design, advertising and marketing, film and media, game design, and legal work too.

AI is here and is making big impact. It just isn't evenly distributed or fully capitalized upon yet. That'll happen in time.

> If they could create real economic value using their models

Whoa whoa WHOA! Replacing the C-suite is actually extremely economically valuable. They cause so much disruption and produce nothing but useless meetings and paper corpus. Getting rid of them would tremendously boost all of humanity's efficiency.

You mean stealing the chat logs of a researcher who was solving a niche mathematical conjecture, completing the last step and calling the whole thing their own.

Guess they need to hire an "idea guy" first?

Openrouter is not so open as well, right? They take the middle man cut by enforcing their own limit restrictions and 429s on top of the model provided limit restrictions and what not.

Now why would I pay a middle man anything if I can get the same hosted model without their own whimsical service limits?

The art styling is more or less uniform too.

I haven't seen many AI works that produces a pelican on a bicycle done in a "Ligne Claire" style, for example.

I guess AI's narrows down the output probability space drastically and converge on some agreed upon aesthetics. Works great for computer programs but bad for art.

But that's the nature of the beast isnt it? A probabilistic token predictor will all always have some errors from a human perspective, more and more energy, money and resources will always be needed to control and direct towards desired outcomes.

It will burn up the tokens to get through the deterministic gates, more so when n order dependencies are involved in the mix. Enough typewritters and monkeys could get it done too.

I found I used fewer tokens by having many short prompts than long ones — because it spent many fewer tokens thinking and narrating.

what is of really good use is a super factory. The super factory drives the factory which builds the harness of harnesses.

Wait until you hear about the giga-factories...

But seriously, if you care, this is just like using an existing library to do the lower level development work which I think is already pretty well done by the existing agents. It's not a design decision.

the factory must grow

is this a mindustry reference haha

Factorio :)

3% of measurable gains is massive in itself isn't it? Taken as a percentage of the total volume of workforce and the world economy?

If we can gain 3% across the board gains on AI based tasks without subsidized expenses, that would be a great win!?

But is it a 3% gain if we include the costs? Or would it actually be cheaper to just hire humans with the money going to tokens?

And guess what humans even learn, get better and might bring more value in the future.

Answer is simple.

Why isn't U.S. better at Field hockey, Badminton, Cricket, Ping pong etc.?

Ideally a capitalistic system is supposed to produce the best or close to the best in each category to stay competitive then what gives?

Capitalism produces the "best" in categories where there is a high demand for a product. In the U.S., the demand is for high-scoring, high-production-value entertainment. This is closely entwined with "culture".

This is why the U.S. leads in sports that are tailored for television and massive stadium revenue. Sports that are more nuanced, low-scoring, or lack a domestic TV or the US cultural zeigeist simply cannot compete for the attention span of the American consumer, and by extension, the capital that follows that attention.

Is modern baseball "high-production-value entertainment"?

For basketball and American football, those sports weren't exactly blockbusters either. The rules and strategies of those games have been carefully tailored over the years to cater to action and scoring, something that was never going happen to the rules (or laws) of soccer.

Agree. "Culture" provides the nurturing "gap fill" while the capital is not exactly flowing and rules are evolving over time. Culture keeps the lights on in lean years and builds camaraderie when the sports is thriving.

Cannot keep count on how many times I have heard of "Babe Ruth" (1895 - 1948) mentioned in a movie/tv show entertainment context, where a grandpa or an elderly figure is fondly reminiscing things to their gen X grandkids!

> the demand is for high-scoring, high-production-value entertainment.

What part of American football or baseball is high-scoring or high-production-value or entertaining?

It's hard to keep track of how many times American football or Baseball is used as a back drop of some TV shows or a hollywood blockbuster. How many US pop culture figures have performed at half time shows. How many U.S. heads of states have mentioned about their favorite teams and stadiums etc.,

Doesn't answer my question.

If curling was traditional American sport, you'd get curling instead.

An average NFL game is 11 minutes of action. High production and entertainment lol.

calc, stat etc from a text book is something they would naturally be good at but I don't think book based computations thats in the training set and its extrapolations is what is at question here.

They are not great at playing chess as well - computational as well as analytic.

I think this is wrong and a category error (none of the problems I've given it are in a textbook; they're virtually all randomized), but, try this: just give me a problem to hand off to GPT5, and we'll see how it does.

Further evidence for the faultiness of your claim, if you don't want to take me up on that: I had problems off to GPT5 to check my own answers. None of the dumb mistakes I make or missed opportunities for simplification are in the book, and, again: it's flawless at pointing out those problems, despite being primed with a prompt suggesting I'm pretty sure I have the right answers.