Image: substackcdn.com · rights & removal
Something Has Gone Terribly Wrong at Anthropic
Reporting by The Algorithmic BridgeRead the original at thealgorithmicbridge.com
Executive Summary
Facts Only
* The author grew twice their size in the first year after birth and doubled again subsequently, resulting in a current height of approximately 180 cm.
* The Silicon Valley hivemind exhibits a "mild exponentiality disorder" across metrics like transistor counts, GDP, AI benchmark scores, model sizes, intelligence, and attention capture.
* Natural systems do not tolerate insurrection; nature limits exponential growth.
* The cosmos imposes an upper bound on how fast things can grow.
* The author uses a chessboard analogy to illustrate how doubling in successive squares exhausts resources.
* Gordon Moore stated that "no exponential is forever," but this does not mean forever can be delayed indefinitely.
* A sigmoid curve represents the transition from exponential growth, where a plateau is better than a downward slope for singularity.
* Stacking sigmoids may approximate an exponential temporarily, but still obeys physical laws and will eventually become a sigmoid.
* Anthropic's revenue growth trend is presented following the mathematical argument.
Full Take
From the original · The Algorithmic Bridge
Hey, Alberto here! 👋 I publish long-form AI analysis covering culture, philosophy, and business. Paid subscribers get Monday how-to guides and Friday news commentary (back soon).Read the full story at thealgorithmicbridge.com
Sentinel — provisional
No strong signs of machine writing were found in the source article. Provisional estimate, not a finding that a person wrote it.
The text presents a highly opinionated, analytical argument using personal anecdotes and complex mathematical metaphors to critique the pursuit of indefinite exponential growth in the AI industry, exhibiting strong human rhetorical control.
This looks only at the wording of the original source article, not at this page's AI-written sections. A small local AI model made this estimate. It has not been checked against known human and machine texts, so treat it as provisional. It cannot show who wrote an article.
