与「Dario」相关的搜索结果

Opus 5.5 killed the game. We had it and GPT-6 Sol both draw Dario in Canva with ego (lite). Claude Opus 5.5: 1h 23m, $6.31 GPT-6 Sol: 26m, $14.97 Opus took 3x longer, cost less than half, and drew a much better Dario.

真实的商战往往就是如此朴实无华。 Dario 前脚刚写了四千字长文呼吁放慢前沿 AI 开发， Sam Altman 和马斯克还公开附和， 今天Claude就更新Opus5.5，成本还基本减半。 嘴上说放慢，手上在打价格战。 不说了，杰尼君去更新OpenClaw的模型了， 话说杰尼君半年前自己写的MAX订阅转API的方法，没想到到现在还能正常运行，号也没被封。 A÷在我心里的÷程度减一。🫡

😱无敌了！Opus 5.5 自己写了一套卡通剪辑软件，然后钻进去剪完了！ 不走视频模型，纯程序，code2video！ Claude 小人站在时间轴上： 日出 → 热咖啡 → 三只猫 → 自己跳舞。 伸手把 Sparkle 拉到 70%，咔一声 SNIP!，音轨lyric_track.wav 还在下面抖。 文件名已经是 opus_edit_FINAL_final(2).mp4。 转场、波形、导出按钮、预览手机框，全是代码画出来的。 视频模型在猜下一帧，小克在写剪辑软件。 #Opus55# #Claude# #code2video# #克劳德# #小克# #AI视频# #Dario# #Anthropic#

《时代》发布2026年TIME100 AI榜单，Anthropic、马斯克等入选 《时代》周刊公布2026年TIME100 AI榜单，评选出全球AI领域最具影响力的100位人物。 领导者类别包括Anthropic的Sam Altman、Mark Chen和Greg Brockman，SpaceX CEO埃隆·马斯克，Anthropic联合创始人Dario及Daniela Amodei，字节跳动CEO梁汝波、阿里巴巴CEO吴泳铭、华为董事何庭波等。 创新者包括Cursor CEO Michael Truell、Moonshot AI CEO杨植麟、Manus创始人肖弘等； 思想家和塑造者类别则包括Mira Murati、Ilya Sutskever、李飞飞、Pat Grady、Alfred Lin及Jack Clark等。

Anthropic IPO前，正在设计一套“不靠持股也能控制公司”的结构 1/ Dario Amodei据称只持有Anthropic约2%股份，但公司正在准备让创始团队在IPO后继续掌握更大控制权。 方案包括创始人超级投票权，以及由非股东受托人选出多数董事。 这场IPO要解决的不只是融资，还有“谁最终决定Anthropic往哪里走”。👇

Sholto, thank you for setting the record straight. Larger issue is that multiple very serious people in Silicon Valley have heard some variation of this and believe it to be true. And the reason it is believable to so many is that it is consistent with Dario’s public messaging and what he outlined in the essay you shared: this technology *might* be dangerous for humans in multiple ways, could lead to extreme concentration of economic power (as outlined in the essay) and therefore needs to be regulated thoughtfully. I agree with the potential risks and I believe Dario makes all of these arguments in good faith. 
As discussed on the pod, if one agrees that AI *might* be dangerous, there are two ways to address this potential risk. Either concentrate it in the hands of a chosen few companies and politicians via regulation or distribute it widely. Essentially boils down to whether one believes AI is too dangerous to concentrate or too dangerous to distribute. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but I profoundly agree with Zuckerberg’s statement that: “The notion that AI is so dangerous that the only safe path is an extreme concentration of power seems inherently problematic. Historically, hoping that an absolute power will benevolently provide for humanity if sufficiently enlightened has not led to safe or positive outcomes.” And as Dario says in the aforementioned essay, “some may object that we can simply keep AIs in check with a balance of power between many AI systems, as we do with humans.” I believe this is the best path forward: I want as many AIs as possible to maximize the odds that one shares my own particular values. And as Dario notes, no human has ever been able to take over the world. At this point, I think safe to say that Dario has lost the argument. His messaging has failed to result in his preferred regulatory path. The fact that the only solution to the recent incident where an unreleased advanced OpenAI model hacked Hugging Face was an open-source model likely ended any chance of strict near-term regulation. Essentially every major company other than Anthropic has signed Jensen’s letter. However, Dario’s messaging has been massively helpful to efforts to ban datacenters here in America. I suspect we will see anti-datacenter advocacy groups runnings ads using clips of Dario warning about how dangerous AI could be for humans. His good faith efforts in favor of regulation are now increasing the odds that AI will not be beneficial for Americans and humans everywhere. I believe that there is a reasonable chance AI might help us cure most forms of disease such that we have extended lifespans and can enjoy these long lives in an abundant Star Trek like future. That is the future that I want and I think Dario is decreasing the odds of that future at this point. He is about to be the CEO of one of the most important public companies in the world and given that the pro-regulatory effort has failed (at least for now), I respectfully think he should make an effort to be a more positive advocate for his own industry. And if I am wrong and we do need to regulate this technology, he will be a more effective advocate for this in the future having been open-minded to the alternative. And for the sake of clarity and as I outlined on the pod, I think Anthropic has deep competitive advantages and is an amazing company. Ironically, the main risk I saw to Anthropic a few months ago was nationalization as a result of Dario’s own rhetoric and behavior.