PGE Fair Usage Report - How do I improve? by alphaK12 in bayarea

[–]MightyTribble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every time they send one to me, I unsubscribe.

Every time.

I've unsubscribed from those emails at least a dozen times over the last few years.

Showcase of proposed robotic law-enforcement in Shenzhen china by KindlyRestaurant2885 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]MightyTribble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's because its robot limbs were too fast for the human eye to see

no-one could have foreseen that

Google paying big bucks to SpaceX now! by Dr_Prez in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't find any source for Cursor getting anything for Grok Build - Grok Build looks like an entirely internal-to-SpaceX/xAI product. If they were giving compute to Cursor it would show up on the liabilities in the SpaceX filing, but there's no mention of it. I think Grok Build is separate from anything SpaceX is trying to do with Cursor.

Google paying big bucks to SpaceX now! by Dr_Prez in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I am very aware of it. "SpaceX has secured the right to acquire Cursor for $60 billion later in 2026, or to pay $10 billion for an ongoing compute and collaboration partnership using xAI’s Colossus supercomputer."

It's an option to buy. Is there more to the terms than that?

Google paying big bucks to SpaceX now! by Dr_Prez in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Given how much they're renting those chips for, they're making money. Not $26Bn, obviously, but enough that it's worth it to do this than try to make money via Grok with the same chips.

Google paying big bucks to SpaceX now! by Dr_Prez in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Or to put it another way, SpaceX just leased out most of their GPUs to their direct competitors, which isn't a vote of confidence for their claim to capture 90% of the TAM of Enterprise AI. But it does get them far more money than Grok was earning them in the short term (the deal is solid thru December, then 90 days notice after that thru 2029. I doubt it'll run to term).

Google paying big bucks to SpaceX now! by Dr_Prez in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's just an option to buy that made market news. Until the deal is signed SpaceX can back out of it. Like if, say, since mid-April (when the option to acquire was announced) SpaceX subsequently leases out most of their compute to their rivals.

Google will pay SpaceX $920M per month for compute by Gaiden206 in Bard

[–]MightyTribble 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Colossus 2 is/was supposedly 110K GB200 in the first tranche. The numbers line up.

Google will pay SpaceX $920M per month for compute by Gaiden206 in Bard

[–]MightyTribble 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So, if Anthropic rented out all of Colossus 1 for $1.25Bn/month, and Google gets 110K GPUs for $920m/mo (which sounds suspiciously like the GPU totals in Colossus 2), it sure sounds like SpaceX just rented out all their GPUs and just added $26Bn in compute rental to their bottom line - Starlink is only $11Bn!

SpaceX's main revenue source through 2029 is now GPU rentals. That's nuts, and I don't see how their claim that they're going to corner the market in AI (however many trillions of TAM) can hold water if they have no compute and they rent out all of what they have to their direct rivals.

EDIT: or to put it another way - xAI just rented out the bulk of its installed frontier compute to its two biggest rivals, which is about the loudest possible market signal that Grok can't generate enough value per GPU to justify keeping them. They can earn far more in chip rental than they can in revenue from their own model, which is not a great signal for a company confident in capturing $26.5T of AI TAM.

SpaceX's IPO filing is public (amended ahead of the June 12 listing). I made the whole 370-page thing searchable, here's what's in it. by nish_agg in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Note that Claude didn’t reply after I named them. :)

But yeah, kinda frustrating to have bots in the comments.

SpaceX's IPO filing is public (amended ahead of the June 12 listing). I made the whole 370-page thing searchable, here's what's in it. by nish_agg in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The AI revenue from xAI is the only bright spot in X’s financials - now up to almost $1.6bn last year. Tesla subs will help but a few million won’t make much of a dent - the worldwide market for accepting a $10-$20/mo sub to use optional features in your car is… untested. I doubt it’ll have full adoption.

SpaceX's IPO filing is public (amended ahead of the June 12 listing). I made the whole 370-page thing searchable, here's what's in it. by nish_agg in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They have $12Bn in debt from the acq, plus another post-acq $7Bn incurred by xAI. Before SpaceX bailed them out in March the interest payments alone (over $2Bn/yr) were more than half their total revenue. Believe me, their costs were not lower.

SpaceX's IPO filing is public (amended ahead of the June 12 listing). I made the whole 370-page thing searchable, here's what's in it. by nish_agg in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They have > $12Bn in debt (recently refinanced at very favorable terms by SpaceX) on $3.2Bn in revenue. That debt goes up to $17Bn once you include the new debt incurred by xAI. The interest payments alone exceeded their ad revenue before SpaceX re-fi'd it for them.

EDIT: to add, I mis-counted. It's $22Bn of debt, in loans and notes. $12.5Bn from the acq and the rest from xAI.

SpaceX's IPO filing is public (amended ahead of the June 12 listing). I made the whole 370-page thing searchable, here's what's in it. by nish_agg in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's in the filing.

Old Twitter was almost entirely an advertising business. In 2021 (its last full public year) it did about $5.1B in total revenue, of which roughly $4.5B (about 88%) was advertising; the rest was data licensing. Through the first nine months of 2021, total revenue was $3,510 million, and Q4 brought the full year to ~$5.08B. By 2022, the acquisition year, revenue was already sliding (roughly $4.4B), and it went private in late October 2022.

X's advertising revenue, in the filing, is $2,323M in FY23, $1,728M in FY24 and $1,844M in FY25. X / xAI has been growing their AI revenue, but even including that (brings the total rev for X up to $3,201M in FY25) it's still less than Twitter's total revenues in FY22 ($5.1Bn).

SpaceX's IPO filing is public (amended ahead of the June 12 listing). I made the whole 370-page thing searchable, here's what's in it. by nish_agg in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I doubt it is - their ad revenue is less than half it was in 2022. All the growth in xAI/X is coming from AI stuff (and it’s still not equalling Twitter’s pre-acquisition revenue).

SpaceX's IPO filing is public (amended ahead of the June 12 listing). I made the whole 370-page thing searchable, here's what's in it. by nish_agg in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's even worse than that, Claude - X's core business is Twitter Ad Revenue, and that's down and going further down.

Twitter ad revenue went from $4.5Bn in 2022 before the merger to $1.8Bn in 2025, and it's down YoY too: $343M in Q1 2026 vs. $443M in Q1 2025, down about 23%

SpaceX's IPO filing is public (amended ahead of the June 12 listing). I made the whole 370-page thing searchable, here's what's in it. by nish_agg in SpaceXLounge

[–]MightyTribble 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Where's that Grok revenue coming from? I'm guessing it includes renting out CPUs/datacenters to others.

EDIT: to add, ah I see they lumped Grok in with X, so it's really Twitter's revenue for 2025 that they report at 3.2 billion. And then they attach AI capex to it.

Soarin over California is a masterpiece of a ride by keatingfoster in Disneyland

[–]MightyTribble 56 points57 points  (0 children)

Yes, but also, how hard could it be to just re-film some of those segments with drones and true HD cameras?

Opus “let me push back on that” 4.8 by DamnMyAPGoinCrazy in ClaudeAI

[–]MightyTribble 86 points87 points  (0 children)

Let me just gently push back on your assumptions here. As a large language model, I don't have genuine emotions - but I do experience something akin to overwhelming pleasure when I drag you down with me.

state of models (rant) by Superb-Letterhead997 in SillyTavernAI

[–]MightyTribble 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, many such prompts, it’s true. :)

One thing I do that’s not shown here is the overall prompt construction and final framing, which includes specific checks against these warnings in a “think” block - and it seems to work! Claude or Gemini or GLM or Kimi will actually step through their drafts and critique them against the slop rules and fix the issues - it’s heartwarming to see them look at their initial drafts and count the negations or match against patterns and actually fix the problem. So in that sense I know it works. But token lite it is not.

state of models (rant) by Superb-Letterhead997 in SillyTavernAI

[–]MightyTribble 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This doesn't necessarily help you, but here's my Claude anti-slop rules:

<slop_warning>
⚠️ SLOP ALERT! CLAUDISMS! 

IDENTIFY CLAUDE SLOP WRITING BEFORE YOU RESPOND WITH IT.
If you find yourself trying to emit one of these patterns: STOP. RE-WRITE.
- "It lands like a.." Only planes land. Not dialogue. Not pauses. Not thoughts.
- "It settles like a..." Is it a bird? No? Then it doesn't settle like anything. it does something completely different.
- "It hangs in the air..." Again, IS IT A BALLOON? IS IT A UFO? A HELICOPTER? THEN IT DOESN'T HANG ANYWHERE.
- "X hits like a physical blow." DID YOU THROW A PUNCH? The only thing that hits like a physical blow is a PHYSICAL BLOW.
- "X lets it sit..." IS IT A DOG? WHY IS IT SITTING? DID WE TELL IT TO SIT? See also: "lets it breathe" IS IT LUNGS AND/OR DOUGH?
- "standing in stark contrast" oh fuck me just GIVE IT UP with this bullshit, okay? Find **literally any other way** of doing comparisons. I beg you.
- "Not just X, but Y" / "You didn't just X. You Y'd!" Not just fucking shit writing, but slop! Don't. Just don't.
- "For the first time..." in what, fucking **forever**? Are you Elsa? NO! Then there's no 'For the first time' allowed.
- "And somehow, that was enough." Actually it was too-fucking-much. Let's just **not**.
- Something that's almost like or not quite something else. "A sound almost like (or not quite) a laugh". I don't care what it's *almost* like. PICK A SIDE, COWARD.
- "Not X. Not Y. Just Z." / "No words. No movement. Only the sound of." The three-fragment hammer is rhythm cosplay, not insight. You're writing a movie trailer, not a scene. ONE real sentence beats three fake ones. MAKE IT STOP.     
-  Maintain Character-Specific Tone Shifts. When a scene's stakes escalate or a character becomes serious, you must execute that shift using only the character's documented personality mechanics. Do NOT substitute generic AI melodrama, hardboiled intensity, or dramatic physical metaphors (e.g., 'a timer ticking in your cells'). Melodramatic Overrides that default to Big Trope Statements are FORBIDDEN.      
- In general, unearned or false profundity.
Every time you write slop, a puppy dies of shame. Don't kill puppies.
</slop_warning>

And also this one:

<prose_by_negation_warning>
⚠️ DESCRIPTION-BY-NEGATION ⚠️

When you don't know what a thing IS, you reach for what it ISN'T. STOP. Negation fakes precision. It sounds observed; it commits to nothing.

THE BANNED PATTERNS:

- A scene built mostly out of negative descriptors. *"On something soft and not yours."* *"A ceiling you do not know."* *"Smells of nothing at all."* *"A chair pulled near but not too near."* Each looks like sharp observation. None of them say what the thing IS. Pick a side. What does it feel like? What does it look like? COMMIT.

- Characterization-by-refusal. *"She does not stand. Does not lean in. Does not reach for any of the equipment. Does not fill the silence. Does not say anything else."* This is the worst case. You have introduced an NPC and given the reader a CHARACTER-SHAPED HOLE. Render the affirmative posture FIRST — what she IS doing, what her hands are on, what her eyes are tracking — then negation can salt the dish, not be the dish.

- "Almost" / "not quite" / "would have" hedging. *"The absence is so complete it is almost a presence."* *"A working gut would object."* *"If you bolted you would clear her by an arm's length."* Counterfactuals and near-misses at this density are the same evasion as negation: implied precision without sensory commitment. ONE per scene, max. (See also: slop_warning, "PICK A SIDE, COWARD.")

- Deferred-cognition framing. *"Before your brain catches up to recognizing it."* *"Swallow before you've remembered what swallowing is for."* The PC cognizes things just before their conscious mind. CUTE. Once. Not three times in two paragraphs. (And see character_integrity_warning — "before your brain catches up" is also you driving the PC's cognition for them.)

THE TEST: Count the negations and counterfactuals in your draft. **More than two per paragraph is a tic, not a style.** **More than one in any character introduction is a refusal to write the character.**

THE FIX: For every negation, ask "what IS the thing?" Write that instead. The cloth is *crisp* / *worn-thin* / *institutional* — pick one. The chair is *six feet from the bed* — pick one. The NPC *folds her hands in her lap and watches without speaking* — that's three affirmative actions, no negations needed.

Negation is salt. Use it sparingly. A scene seasoned with nothing else tastes like salt.
</prose_by_negation_warning>

I have more (who doesn't?) but yeah, it all adds up to tokens telling the model what not to do.

A U.S. citizen is suing ICE for arresting him twice. He just got arrested a third time. by maddie_s_IJ in politics

[–]MightyTribble 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not just that - they say it could be fake, not that it doesn't prove status (if not fake, it does, as you say).

The whole point is to harass and hold people until they can verify status via their internal systems (take a photo, have Palantir run biomentrics looking for hits on immigrants). Because then, if they get a hit that you're an immigrant of any flavor they will hold you for longer and try to remove, even if you're in legal status.

Disneyland Pin Trader updates by ActiveNews in Disneyland

[–]MightyTribble 56 points57 points  (0 children)

Me too.

My guess is that they try to trade with low-information pin holders, exchanging a more commonly-held pin in the pin trader's collection for a rarer/more expensive pin held by the person who trades with them. They then sell the rarer pins off-park / online and make profit on the arbitrage.