Bending Spoons tried to 2x my Harvest bill on the usage-based plan and 146x (yes, that's not a percentage) on the unlimited plan. I switched to Clockify [1] and it works well.
Is an interesting question whether the same will apply to AI models? Not on 1996 hardware, of course. But on 2026 hardware in 2056. Does anybody have any idea / insight?
There's no way to know. It's impossible for anyone to imagine the AI state of the art in 2056.
But it's a fair bet that any kind of RSI will improve efficiency, possibly by a lot. And it's also very possible that 2056 AI will be running on some other substrate - maybe photonics, or something even more exotic - that wouldn't map cleanly to 2026 hardware.
Unlike chess, AI isn't a constrained problem, so there is no single higher ELO metric that would make performance comparable.
Computing in general has always become smaller, cheaper, faster, more portable, more energy efficient, and more connected.
So there may not even be a concept of discrete computing devices in 2056. Or of discrete software and services. Compute may be everywhere, in everything, all networked, reinventing itself continually.
A temporary failure means that the job failed only once and then starts running again. If you want to investigate why it failed, you will need the output of that particular failed run.
Indeed, the disclaiming of it being human-coded isn't the problem with their commit messages, them using it as a growth hack mechanism is. BTW to say it's attributed to Claude, I don't give that much importance, but I think it's useful to other coders to know what model was used. A simple assisted by AI would mostly handle the plaigiarism problem, because Claude's training data didn't come from Claude.
Interesting. Can you elaborate on why you feel strongly about this? It's easily removable--I don't think your characterization that it "forces" attribution is correct, it just defaults it.
It's deliberately hostile, in the way that Facebook is to its userbase. I guess Claude doesn't have nearly the grip on their users that Facebook does. Facebook can make it hard to communicate with (via WhatsApp) or stay connected with some of your friends or relatives, while Claude can just make you use the second-best model for cheaper (if Fable is the best).
At least judging from the headlines, it seems Google is far behind on AI. Fable/GPT 5.6 and recently Kimi get a lot of attention, solve long-standing math problems and lead in coding. It seems that Google's supposed advantages of very deep pockets, original talent, vast amounts of data and unmatched distribution are really not making that much of a difference. What is going wrong?
1: https://clockify.me/
reply