If you were given something like $10mil, invested in index funds over the last 10 years, in nontax advantaged accounts. And your wife has health issues.
No kids.
Not to mention, a world where nature is taking a beating year after year.
Do you think you'd be interested in working in front of a computer day after day researching, script writing, etc. for people you don't know and probably will never meet?
Now take that answer, and ask yourself - if you were a content generator for your career, and your content got consumed into every AI model early on. Now making any submission have the added hurdle of being content flagged for possible AI usage. Ultimately taking a huge hit to your revenue model...
Or perhaps, spending your time with your wife. Enjoying nature. And just generally disconnecting from the rat race. Especially the rat race 3.0 (Now with AI!)
Like yeah, do some projects here and there for yourself. But do you really want the added burden of pleasing others?
Well that's an interesting philosophical question about what matters in life and what we are here for. If you look at it as creating knowledge for posterity then I like to think maybe yes. But I wouldn't want to overdo it.
I don't buy this. The videos were always easily duped stick figures discussing obscure trivia. CGP Grey has always hated his audience. That was the point.
"AI" cannot imitate the personality or perspective, and that's all anyone ever really cared about. He can vent in any format and people still listen, hence the success with podcasts. That would be effortless and enjoyable unless there was a serious life event to cause a change in perspective (the money isn't it). That's what the leading speculation is.
You're projecting a type of struggle that may exist for you, but was never there for him. He pretty loudly stated multiple times in multiple ways that he was losing his edge, and that's just life.
It makes more sense that he thinks his new authentic self might be more damaging to the brand than abandoning it. He shouldn't be afraid to share the next chapter, but that's his struggle and choice.
I think internal use is allowed at any scale in the license?
> 4. The requirements set forth in Sections 2 and 3 do not apply to: (a) internal use of the Software, defined as any use that does not make the Software, its outputs, or its underlying capabilities available to third parties; [...]
It's very hard to make sure none of the outputs are ever made available to third parties. Source code can end up widely distributed (e.g. client-side js, open source). Prose will frequently get shared across organization boundaries (e.g. emails, websites, documents).
License for LLMs already have very little strength (it's not clear at all that they have any legal basis whatsoever) an AI lab is very, very unlikely to sue you for violating this kind of license clause for the reason you mentioned. It's clearly worded in a way to deter people from running a third party inference business out of it, they would have been much more explicit if they wanted to deter people from running it for internal use.
As far as I can tell, license fees are only applicable if you have more than 20m USD/year revenue from services provided using the model, or serve more than 100m users.
They are likely assessing based on "raw intelligence" benchmarks, rather than agentic ones. Fable crushes in those, but that doesn't necessarily translate to microscopic rigor, which is what most people use these models for. You only see it when you ask really tough questions.
Takeaways
Which model to use for generating architecture.
The simpler the decision you need to make, the more readily you can just take a proposal from Fable or GPT-5.5. And now that Fable is unavailable outside the US, the choice between Opus and GPT is far from obvious. As a quick default I'd lean toward GPT.
I think their "code" ranking is biased towards visual aesthetics more than raw coding as the voters are just asked which generated website they prefer.
I hope you appreciate the irony of saying that in a thread where we are discussing that OpenAI's main competitor is engaging in blatantly anti-consumer behavior.
There is no irony: both of them are bad (for different reasons, but bad) and this is not a matter of choosing the "lesser evil". Both of them should be treated as toxic and rejected as strongly as possible.
Anthropic wants to enforce them via language of the contracts and take a hands off approach. OpenAI has a contract that is paired with humans in the room (FDEs) that can pull the plug.
