It's one of these rare cases where intention is not what is the most important - the net benefit for consumers and companies outside of the USA is indisputable.
For me LLMs are a step forward from previous ML approaches (some of them were and still are extremely useful anyway) and for sure are very useful to many people. They are very good at generating sensible output based on input created by millions of people, but very poor at creating anything really novel.
Way too short sighted. You're still operating under the (mistaken) beliefs that
1. The write terrible unmaintainable code
2. They can't just improve any code retrospectively
3. You're going to be maintaining it
I am now writing home projects where I am actually "vibe coding", to an extent. In my job, I can't do this because other people still review my work and will complain about things that don't match our human invented patterns for software development, and more importantly, I am actually responsible for this code and if it goes wrong our firm goes bust.
But, I genuinely mean it when I say that we are not far away from the point where verifications (functional, non-functional), as long as they're comprehensive enough, will be all that is required, and I don't expect to be reading the nitty gritty details of PRs in a few years time.
It is only a mess if it doesn't work correctly in a functional and non-functional sense. All other coding conventions are invented to make it easier for humans to maintain code. Agents don't care, they will happily chug away pressing the virtual keys endlessly, changing whatever the previous agent left.
AIs do a good job of maintaining their own code, including refactoring, increasing test coverage, ensuring documentation doesn't become stale, updating dependencies. They've been extensively trained to perform pretty much all of the functions of maintaining codebases and they do it far more diligently than most people.
3. There is an exception to 2: if Anthropic made a gigantic discovery and was able to reduce the cost while increasing the usage - but since it would be in their best interests, they would announce this information and brag about it for months, but they haven't (what they do is just playing the quantization game all labs do, but this is beside the point).
4. Hence, we have very solid reasons to assume their costs increased.
"Opus 5.5 requires less compute to serve than Opus 5, and its pricing reflects that. Our tests show that at default settings it will cost 40% less than Opus 5 on typical workloads."
The biggest disadvantage of Jev is that it's a proprietary product and you need to send them your data. A bespoke solution makes much more sense in many scenarios.
> The only option on the table is to force regulation to impose open source ban
This makes zero sense.
1. Open source models are already out there and they are good. Good luck with banning their use.
2. Any ban is a local ban, the best Trump can do is to coerce its allies (whose number seems to be dwindling week by week). Meanwhile China and co. will progress anyway.
3. What about the common sense and instead of saying "agent did it" we return to the times where the person using a tool was responsible for using it in the first place? And if the vendor of the tool is unable to make it safe to use (well, they well do, but they don't want to do it as the functionality is limited), it should be accompanied by a warning with a clear explanation of who exactly is responsible.
4. There is no guarantee the next generation of models will "mature" to the point of not having these flaws; on the contrary, the evidence so far shows the opposite.
Well I never said I thought it was going to work in the long run. However, most revenue comes from business API use. I could certainly imagine some kind of legislation that makes it much harder for businesses to implement open source models locally. That may buy OpenAI and Anthropic some time.
> Open source models are already out there and they are good. Good luck with banning their use.
Would most companies really risk using them if they were illegal though? Could you convince higher ups to drop the Claude subscription because you can download an illegal model to run on company servers?
And a patch panel and a bunch of patch cables that you plug in and out to construct your pipelines.
And eventually hire people whose job it is to patch pipelines on demand for everyone in the office.
“Hey Jim, I’m gonna output the systemd logs of nginx on line five, can you assemble a grep pipeline for me to match all HTTP 500 status codes from /api/cart POST request log lines? Connect the filtered output to Tim’s desk, line 7. He’s there now, we are trying to figure something out.”
That could be a factor for sure, but this iOS upgrade basically broke mu iPhone as switching between apps got noticeably slower and sometimes the UI gets stuck for a second or two especially when switching between the camera and other apps. I'm so sorry I gave in and installed it.
reply