No they can't.

And as long as I pay as little for claude opus 5.5 i do right now, i'm using it.

But yes i'm glad that we have alternatives.

I find certain points woo wishiwashi.

I think its very reasonable for AI to speedup superconductor finding which will make medical scanning a lot cheaper, easier and better.

It will also allow for massive and easy energy transportation for large distances like afrika/spain <> europe.

In medicin understanding DNA and the results of it could lead to solving cancer and dementia.

New better batery chemicals will help us for solid state batteries. no AAA version of this but up to 1000kwh/kg + low temp and high temp stability and very stable against burning.

Physical ai will solve human labor.

Running QWen costs so much locally, that a $20 subscription costs the same with better quality, significant better but less privacy.

Team costs simliar to normal plan. $20/$25 is not much. the $5 extra you pay for the team features like shared workspaces.

So you still pay $100/$200 dollar per person and depending on the size of the company, you have to use and pay API costs.

Microsoft has full and unlimited access to OpenAI models. That was some agreement when they invested originally.

Besides that the article states quite high numbers, budget is budget in these companies.

You had budget for your normal salaries, for externals and now suddenly you have a few millions additional.

What do you do? You compensate.

Business people doing business things.

Our ai basic analysis for SRE / k8s based platform is haiku and its surprisngly good.

I wouldn't even tried it, i would still just go with even Opus (we don't have that many alerts) but it really surpsied me.

When i ran into usage limits a few days ago i switched most to Sonnet and again was surprised how good it is now.

I wish we had such a platform (and was properly adopted). Maybe then the necessary context would be properly organized, and these lesser models could be effective here as well, especially if combined with harnessing integrations too. I still have a hard time accepting that Haiku/Luna tier models can be effective there even then, but I'll just have to take your word for it I suppose.

The reckoning will be throwing out all external help, then reducing team sizes.

the poster did mention "if it saves 10% of your time".

So be less snarky?

When do you draw a line then?

I had an idea for a small game for ages, never the time for it and now i'm vibing on it randomly because its fun.

How much finetuning/prompting would you allow me until you think its reasonable? One prompt? Or a certain amount of resources i put in?

Don't get me wrong, i'm curious on when you think a certain quality is reached. I ask this myself too. Like i have a lot of experience in the area of game development, game mechanics, programming and usability. Now the game itself i adjust constantly because i have a lot of strong opinions.

But will this ever be something i might release for free and people get a benefit out of this?

It's a fair question, and I don't have a clear answer.

I do think I have a general principle, which is: once we have a new capability, we can use it to reach further or to reach the same places with less effort. Reaching further seems objectively good; reaching the same places with less effort is more of a gray area.

I realise there's an argument for democratization, for reducing friction to put creativity in the hands of more people. Say you're a great artist who could make beautiful games but don't know how to code, you might use AI as a crutch to enable you to express your art. Same if you're a coder or have great ideas about game design but don't have graphics available to make the whole product happen.

If AI is covering all fronts though, we're throwing the baby with the bathwater here. There's no talent allowed to shine, no message that can now be better delivered, no idea better expressed. it's all wrapping.

and notice how the message from google is not 'reach more people', or 'let your talent shine'. The message is 'type a whim from your couch and you'll get it instantly'. Quick empty dopamine, no quality involved.

This is like saying that going to restaurants does not allow your talent to shine in cooking.

Every person decides what to do with their saved time. Some people may want to use a ready made game, others may prefer to write a story or alter the script of the game. The ones who play a ready made game may express their creativity in areas not related to gaming.

You are judging people for not doing what you think they should do. As if your role was to be their social engineer.

>This is like saying that going to restaurants does not allow your talent to shine in cooking.

It really isn't, presumably you go to a restaurant to enjoy someone else's work, and the owner put some effort at the dishes.

I suspect you'll struggle to find an example of human activity where there is no effort or agency in both the consumer and the maker.

>You are judging people for not doing what you think they should do. As if your role was to be their social engineer.

Kind of a weird argument. Now you're judging me for the writings of my post, as if you were my editor (?). Of course debate implies voicing an opinion.

I think I see your point. I don't say it's wrong. I just wanted to comment that your feeling repulsed is the result of the way you interpret the situation, and that there are many ways to see it.

Agency is an illusion. You don't generate your thinking, it just happens. I don't know why you believe that agency of the maker is needed for something to be enjoyable.

We could also say that the makers are the builders of the IA, and that they put effort in building it.

I agree partially aabout your google view but it just might be the first easy thing someone plays around with and gets motivated to dive deeper.