All gists smell like AI-generated.
You're _probably_ going to reply to a bot.
Sad to see this on the HN front page.
The need to reimburse for time down, but not for lost revenue/opportunity. That's our responsibility, as builders, to plan for.
Shouldn't that be the other way around? Isn't every LLM provider losing money? Especially on premium subscriptions.
Capex for inference is in, capex for training is out for that analysis.
If they've got X times as many customers next year than they have right now, training costs per customer gets divided by X, but inference costs per customer stay roughly constant.
So for businesses where they expect X to be large, they care about operating costs a heck of a lot more than R&D.
Assuming that's even true, the big asterisk is uncertainty around efficiency gains in the future. The intelligence divided by cost ratio is changing very quickly. It is hard to make confident predictions more than 3 months out.
If you don't like it, go use someone else's product. There are plenty of choices.
For example, in Australia any consumer has rights around products and services they purchased regardless of the terms agreed to during sale. If a business offered 99% uptime in their marketing, then they are required to provide that or, something equivalent, or a refund, even if it was never mentioned or some lower number was mentioned in the terms and conditions.
Enforcing that however, particularly with companies that are renowned for having no human staff, is tricky.
So yes, definitely agree - builders have to be aware of their dependencies and work with the realities of what they provide, not the theoretical
Also the math in this gist doesnt math.
So maybe the chargeout rate is highly informative.
2/10 would not read again.
Someone posing as a freelance dev trying to con Anthropic out of money they themselves would be incapable of making on their own.
Can't even write their own impassioned write-up.
Whoever prompted Claude to write this: figure out what YOU can do that's actually marketable. You don't seem to have found it yet.
That said, I do feel like this is just one person's way of coming around to the realization that they don't actually need this product. At least not in this form. One more step towards normalizing local-only llms that produce better results with smaller scopes and fewer resources.
Perhaps not the best idea to be this dependent on a product.