> all say they’re delivering multiple times faster

Are you measuring the right metric?

This feels like an on going lack-of-understanding in the industry.

In manufacturing, economies of scale and automation work because you're physically making more objects and objects inherently have value.

For software, making more software doesn't mean you can sell more units of software. The unit price of selling existing software is already 0. Economies of scale do not exist.

The OP says: net business output is not up as a result of AI.

So:

…if your team is doing more work and being more productive…

That just means the productivity of your team (or software teams in general) maybe doesn't have a meaningful business impact.

You should be worried if so. That means productivity = work force reduction (reduce fixed costs for the business).

Hold on, you’re claiming that software companies don’t have economies of scale? Is that right?

It sounds like you’re also saying that creating more software can’t result in more revenue?

We work in very different software industries.

> Reddit’s shunning of AI has rendered it useless.

Hyperbole much?

This is a direct response to AI slop destroying a community; what’s your solution to the AI spam problem?

> presumably they just fixed that if statement and it's again chatbot-only.

Including the text for chat-bot only wasn’t an if statement.

If it had been an if statement, it wouldn’t be invisible to humans: it would just be visible. Period. There’s no need to display none.

Display none is for humans.

This was intended, without any need remotely to doubt it, to hide the text from humans.

Was it just incompetent implementation? Or nefarious? Who knows? Perhaps? …but there’s no universe this was ever intended to just be for chat bots.

Thats just obviously nonsense. It wasn’t a bug.

It was deliberate.

> Here are some answers. As usual in this style of post, these are conjectural, candidate answers, and I would give some of them little weight

..

> Again, some of these are speculative and some should be given little weight.

You can drop this right off the top of HN when the OP blatantly acknowledges that their entire post is BS.

“Oh, you can’t critique me, I said these were just speculative…”

No, but is it much of a stretch to say that the valuation and profit/loss are out of proportion?

…which, in a normal sane world, would affect the stock price?

2 trillion is a lot. I’m skeptical, for the same reasons listed in the report.

Its has nothing to do with Dario, and mostly to do with Chinese open weight models.

The controls are a finely tuned machine in starcraft, as evidenced by the competitive scene with crazy apm.

If you dislike the micro required, thats fine, but just because it doesnt suite your preference doesn't mean its bad or clunky.

Just say “I dont like it”.

Thats fine.

If you want to “get” it, devote a few days to playing online multiplayer.

There is a design choice to be made balancing apm and technical play and I think they went to far towards the apm side. Could compare it to bullet chess. While broodwars was arguably even more neurotic it oddly seemed to have more surprising builds. Like many, I've been wondering what slower speed sc2 tournaments would look like.

Also interesting, they went with a specific kind of maps with things like nearly identical mineral lines, no islands or isolated high/low ground, map symmetry, not to big, not to small, ramps, chokes etc and then they balance the game mechanics around those maps making those choices almost permanent.

I use to download a lot of replays and there is a lot more technical fun to be had that is pretty much irrelevant in apm battles. It is also funny to see the game fall apart on maps that don't follow the standard design. Like, flying buildings should be fun not useless or the end of the world.

I don't love a lot of the design decisions sc2 made but at the end of the day it's pretty small nitpicking.

It's incredibly hard to divorce the map from the unit balance in a game like this and people eventually just settled on some combination of standard map features in order to balance around.

That being said, I think sc2 is considerably worse about map variety (mostly due to having more air units and more responsive/smaller collision box armies), every season bw had at least one "wacky" map pros were expected to play on, whether that involves islands or the nearly infinite number of tricks designers pulled off using minerals and gas geysers and such as ways to force certain play patterns

A couple of times they'd even design maps in such a way that one of your close expansion bases started off covered in creep, meaning zerg players could build there whenever they wantes but the other races had to destroy the creep first, with the idea being to make zerg stronger.

I think flying buildings are an interesting example of a fairly useful ability that ends up being extremely subtle, sort of like zerg healing. In almost any pro game, a terran player will lift off at least one building, frequently more (depending on how long the game lasts), but it's rarely a huge game defining moment, just a little optimization (unless they manage to lift off the barracks just when the speedlings show up...)

As you say, there's a balance between apm and "pure strategy", at one end you have chess and the other, dunno, bw I guess, and where you design for is going to involve a whole bunch of subjective factors.

Huh? I specifically said "my lingering impression". What I described is how the game felt to play, to me. I'm not talking about preferences and I'm not asserting some absolute universal state.

> I certainly don't need my subscription anymore

Sure. I still use mine though; privately and at work.

> Nobody is going to use their tools in five years.

> they're dead. Just like half the people expecting to still be writing code by hand.

Hyperbole much. Leave it on LinkedIn man.

Who knows?

5 years is a long time.

They're trying to navigate the AI era just like everyone else.

You know what we got told at work? “Scrappy AI startups are snapping at our heels, we need to move fast so the competition doesn't over take us”

…but if you ask: what startups? Silence. If you ask, why are we scared of some teenager vibe coding a platform and stealing our customers? Silence.

Dont question the narrative.

Of course AI is an existential threat. Of course there are vibed startups trying to eat our market.

Have you not seen our share price?

Such hyperbolic BS. Ffs. Calm down.

Hm… I don’t think you should let claude run for 5 hours with a ten line prompt.

You’ll get “something” but what you get is certainly not going to be what you wanted.

Look, its not complicated:

1) be precise in what you want

2) have a feedback loop to verify it.

3) check in often, not once a day.

> Migrate the payment endpoints from the old client to the new one. Done means: every endpoint uses the new client, the old client is deleted, and the test suite passes.

What end point? What test suite? What is a client?

Maaaaybe the model can infer it from your code, but look, if a human taking that jira ticket would go: what does this mean? …then your model (yes, even 5.5) is going to make a bunch of assumptions.

Correct assumptions? Maybe. Maybe not. …but do you really want to find that out hours later?

Just say:

> Plan out the following as a set high level tasks: …

Then, review the plan and tell it to execute the plan, maybe something like; after each step, ensure the code base compiles and the tests pass.

Then, come back after one hour and make sure it’s on the right track.

Poorly specified long running tasks is a recipe for “rollback all those changes…”

Not everything is trying to be a walled garden. Only 2 apps on my machine are nonfree, and not productivity ones I would care to integrate like this. But yes it's fundamentally hard (and I don't think their suggestions are great)

Seems irrelevant? Of course we don’t use data for training.

…trust me bro.

It’s obviously easier to believe when they’re not training models.

Eh, anyway this whole thing is just an ad:

> Looking to take Ember-1 one step further, and optimize it for your use case? We are also launching training support for Ember-1, enabling enterprises to build customized, token-efficient models tailored to their needs with their own data. The future of open models is specialized models trained on your specific workload.

Probably, I guess, fancy serverless infrastructure actually makes virtually no difference to hosting really large models that people want to use, and “just” being an inference provider for open weight models turns out to have no moat.

So this is a bit of a pivot to “use our training infrastructure too…!” imo.

Pivot? Sure. Go them. Not what I signed up for though. /shrug

I think legal jurisdiction matters in discerning these things. The EU or US both have courts that, despite anyones opinion, are regarded as having robust contract enforcement. If Fireworks is domiciled in either then claiming ZDR and instead training on the data would be an enormous financial footgun. There's reasons why companies on both sides of contracts, even those with little to no US or EU activity, agree to use US or EU courts for enforcement.

Hong Kong I think used to be a popular option as well, before the handover from the UK.

Being terminally 'online' can make people cynical about everything, but have to temper things with reality a bit too.

Another factor in the cynicism is that robust enforcement is very 'pay to play'. I think your point is accurate for a company like Fireworks, largely doing business with peers that could afford litigation if necessary.

Good luck to an individual or small business trying to hold OpenAI or Meta to account if they breach contract over training, or do something crazy like copyright infringement on an industrial scale.