I have attempted to report numerous errors in your Chat UI, but you seem to have decided that customer input is undesired, as you have an AI support system that ignores my problem and refuses to escalate to anyone or create a ticket.
To this day, your in-chat “Report an Issue” button still does not work consistently, and I am still billed for empty responses from many image providers.
Pulled some data - a surprisingly large number of requests to models that generate images, where the user seems to want an image, do NOT return an image. In our chatroom it's ~11%! However, in almost all of those cases, the model is instead deciding to return text, and you are being billed (correctly) for that text. We are not billing you for an image that wasn't returned.
Concretely, we pulled data on the last few days of image gen requests in our chatroom (50,893 requests). 5,846 got a text response (which is frustrating, I'm sure) and were billed for text appropriately. The model did not generate an image.
There were 16 requests where a customer was billed, but neither an image or text was returned. Those should not have been charged, and we'll see if we can either fix that issue or ensure that customers aren't charged.
To paraphrase patio11, a disagreement between you and the market is not a shortage.
I'm surprised that anyone still believes the perennial "labor shortage" complaints. It has always been about employers refusing to improve wages and working conditions.
How I view "labor shortage" complaints by default:
"What's with this shortage of new cars for $5,000!? As a hard-working consumer, I simply can't find enough of what I want at the limited price I am willing to offer, and I demand to know how the government is going to solve this pressing national crisis of enormous importance!"
Go out and look, and you'll see it's definitely a shortage... yet somehow it seems wrong to dignify it with a lot of concern, right? The conditions and causes of the "shortage" are quite important.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic (because you want a $5k car and they don't exist in your market) or serious (because you want a $5k car from China which they do actually sell at that price).
You can tell it's sarcasm because I have a second paragraph stating that it's wrong to dignify the pearl-clutching histrionics with a lot of concern.
> $5k car from China which they do actually sell at that price
Which will be +$2k to transport, and then someone will charge you more because of limited supply, and then it still won't be legal on public roads and highways.
One of the bigger problems of non-capitalist systems is that it requires whips to force people to do things they do not want to do without adequate compensation
They can hire people they can train. They chose not to, instead (whenever possible) whine for visas so they can steal trained professionals off less developed countries
And yet people don't, because it would reduce quarterly profits. So one market (for equities) does kind of magically prevent workers from being trained, by not allowing rational participation in another market (for workers).
Because the sellers are categorizing them as computers on ebay and filling in all of the appropriate specifications as if it was the computer, and only putting in the description "CASE ONLY, DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY COMPUTER PARTS".
>Maybe this is less true in LLM land, but certainly it was right before
I disagree:
I was tasked with rewriting a Python application in ucode for use on OpenWRT. It's a low-resource and dynamic language, and sufficiently JavaScript-like that Opus 4.8 couldn't write code without errors that were obvious with my LSP. The interpreter errors were often reported with the the correct line and column numbers, but with the incorrect code and a vague error message. I had to ask it to use my LSP and fix the warnings and errors, which led to it fixing a few dozen bugs.
Just the other day, Fable 5.1 still wrote a lot of code in Rust that had compiler errors. While I'm sure it could have fixed these errors if the Rust compiler also reported incorrect line numbers, columns, code, with a vague error message to boot, I saved a substantial amount of time and tokens because its error reporting is so comprehensive.
Specific and accurate error message reporting will always have the same high value that it does today. Error messages are far cheaper to generate than tokens.
Don't forget OpenAI, whose CEO bragged gleefully about taking the contract Anthropic refused to sign since it granted the DoW the ability to build Skynet (autonomous weapons) and a Chinese-style mass domestic surveillance system using their models.
They are paying for an insurance policy. Elon Musk and SpaceXAI must be incredibly interested in buying the company who was the victim of a mass hacking campaign by OpenAI. Any lawsuit, criminal investigation, or slowdown of OpenAI's model training would put OpenAI's massive data center build out, which Nvidia just backstopped, at risk.
Any DA can investigate it, they don't need Musk or some other big tech dipshit to tell them otherwise. Real crimes were committed and no charges are being pressed.
OpenAI recently committed multiple felonies against HuggingFace.
Nvidia is heavily invested in OpenAI, recently guaranteeing a datacenter buildout up to $105 billion dollars.
Any reasonable criminal investigation into OpenAI's actions or negligence into this incident would hurt their reputation, their ability to raise money, and therefore Nvidia, who is invested in them.
If I was a founder of HuggingFace, I am immediately getting in contact with Elon Musk and SpaceXAI, and letting him know how that he can purchase them and sue OpenAI, this time with solid claims.
If I was particularly amoral about if I think OpenAI or Anthropic should get to AGI first, I would take this bid to Nvidia, whose entire stock price is propped up by OpenAI's over-purchasing of compute.
They had a near-monopoly on AI-usage by the US military, then had a very public fallout because they refused to allow it to be used for autonomous weapons and mass-surveillance which their main competitor (OpenAI) publicly undermined by immediately signing an unlimited-use agreement, and now they also get flack for this incident they had no control over, because the US military decided to smear them after this fallout?
Because any price at all will immediately cause users to shift to another platform, and GitHub's value is that it is _the_ place to put your code on the internet.
Being the _the_ place for open source is what let them dominate the enterprise. Now that they dominate the enterprise, it'd make financial sense to put hard limits on the free tier. It's cynical but it would be foolish to lose that cash machine. It'd open them up for a competitor to slowly build up good will in open source then take them on in enterprise, but right now they are risking losing it all.
Having worked at places with GitHub Enterprise, that isn’t much of an improvement. You could host something else, but almost everything in this space isn’t great at scale.
Im definitely not referring to GHE. Im talking about real self-hosting infra. It wasnt that long ago that this was possible, and cheaper and more reliable. It's a pay me now or pay me later argument. Everyone now is complaining about the pay me later part of these 'deals'
I don't know how true that is nowadays, I think if you sign up to Enterprise Cloud you're in the same spot as everyone else
(maybe F500 people have their colocated box, but I have the impression that those are the "first class" seats (very expensive but _very few_) whereas enterprise cloud is the "business class" (loooooots of seats making a lot of money)
Someone did a study that suggested the network effect is logarithmic in nature, but if that’s true it means something with 95% market share is 3 times “better” for having everyone there. Not 20 or two orders of magnitude better but not nothing.
Please could you link to the study if you can find it. The definition of "better" seems quite critical here, as well as whether it's specific to code hosting websites. A messaging platform is pretty useless if I'm the only user, but Github would still be useful to me without anyone else having an account.
And the audience you want are users who will never, ever pay to get access. If GitHub starts throttling free users, they throttle the audience you're talking about far, far harder than you.
The audience will go away to somewhere you aren't. Then what?
No one needs github for git itself, nor even for web front-end to git, nor even for hosted/managed someone else's problem web front-end to git, nor even all of that for free.
There's a lot of consumer surplus with the features GitHub offers. I'm sure they can have better pricing tiers to capture the surplus without losing too many users.
To this day, your in-chat “Report an Issue” button still does not work consistently, and I am still billed for empty responses from many image providers.