That’s a charity, not a business model.
Joel Spolsky in 2002 identified a major pattern in technology business & economics: The pattern of "commoditizing your complement", an alternative to vertical integration, where companies seek to secure a choke point or quasi-monopoly in products composed of many necessary & sufficient layers by dominating one layer while fostering so much competition in another layer above or below its layer that no competing monopolist can emerge, prices are driven down to marginal costs elsewhere in the stack, total price drops & increases demand, and the majority of the consumer surplus of the final product can be diverted to the quasi-monopolist.
No matter how valuable the original may be and how much one could charge for it, it can be more valuable to make it free if it increases profits elsewhere.
This pattern explains many otherwise odd or apparently self-sabotaging ventures by large tech companies into apparently irrelevant fields, such as the high rate of releasing open-source contributions by many Internet companies or the intrusion of advertising companies into smartphone manufacturing & web browser development & statistical software & fiber-optic networks & municipal WiFi & radio spectrum auctions & DNS: they are pre-emptive attempts to commodify another company elsewhere in the stack, or defenses against it being done to them.
Here's links to the whole series up to VI: https://lettersremain.com/joel-spolsky-on-strategy/
Then the US will fall behind China and, more importantly, from the rest of the countries in the world who refuse to lobotomize themselves in the manner you described.
There are also other cultural and political risks which, although delayed, may easily grow into something apocalyptic. Rich people building bunkers isn't just a fad, the outcome they envision isn't fiction, it might actually be a part of the plan, and while this is concerning it does make everything simpler.
That's a big "if" for Claude Code, et al.
CC is technically a free product (you can use it with any model). It's got very few popular "opinions" on how a coding harness should work, but it's by far the most popular one (including at competing LLM manufactories like OpenAI and Meta and Google). Why? If it was just that their models are 5% better, most workplaces would optimize on token (aka cost) efficiency.
Anthropic has been winning the usage of their harness, their tokens, while earning significant revenue, by significantly subsiding their token consumption.
This has earned them many things:
- prime data on how software development — simultaneously the leading beneficiary industry from LLM use, and also the most flush with cash to spend — has been using LLMs
- bringing that industry to standardize around their harness concepts. They are essentially establishing themselves as the W3C of LLM interfacing, except as a private organization.
- all dat data
Open weight models are disruptive to the business models of closed model businesses. An incentive is if your business is built around X but model training is helpful to you, but you don’t expect to meter it specifically. You can release your models and undercut the exclusive moat of a new model company like OpenAI or Anthropic from becoming at some point a competitor, or holding their access as a chip in pricing negotiations. By opening your architectures and weights other competitors can build on them and newer better models emerge faster decoupled from a small number of proprietary models. This lets you focus on X while gaining overall momentum on your model release at no additional cost and no loss in focus on X, while defending against upstarts and monopolies.
This is effectively a lot of the open source world that comes from corporate development as well. It feels odd after this many decades of discussing corporate reasons to participate in open source we keep rehashing it.
I know this is beside the point but I'm quite amused by this statement. Are you saying you're a totalitarian? I'm not trying to poke at you here; I'm genuinely interested what you consider the furthest thing from an anarchist to be?
A coding hardness with just bash outperforms Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, Pi ect. The added features are just user experience features.
https://www.endorlabs.com/research/ai-code-security-benchmar...
There's a lot of ways to configure agents and any implicit configuration to harnesses may have a non-trivial effect.
> It's because they do things that is why they score differently.
That was my point. Regardless of how you feel about UX, it's a value added set of features. The question initially posited, stands. Why would a company do any of these things?
> Coding hardness add features for user experience not for agent efficiency.
Pretending it was always about some metric you just decided was important is moving the goalpost. It's not compelling.
I think it makes more sense that it's Freemium Dominance or they act as Low-Cost Marketing tools.
Like the thing people attach a dog lead to so that their kids won't just go kamikaze into a car.
Coding harnesses are named by analogy to that.
They are not hard.
If kids run into a car, they will most probably just bounce and continue, perhaps inflicting some minor damage. But if a car mows down a kid, that could well be a fatal injury. Leashes for all the cars! ;)
The strapped kids are often normal with no apparent disabilities(but it is possible they have an ADHD diagnosis).
Never thought about doing it to my own.
Its like yuo're on fire!
With those measures (which are actually quite interesting) it can at times perform at Sonnet level.
Building a good and working coding harness with smaller models is really hard. Everything evolves around the limited context size.
Tools must be specification driven to reduce noise and high temp hallucinations, tool call shrinking needs to remove errors and tryouts of different formats of parameters (because LLMs always ignore descriptions in the JSON...), and you have to deal with long running agents because you can't afford them. Planner/orchestrator architecture, agent to agent communication need to be summarized, and then you have the messed up scheduling parts, because you need to prioritize short running agents and give the planner a tool to wait for outputs of spawned contractor agents.
And that's not even talking about sandbox vs playground read/write/access policies of tools.
Harness engineering, if done correctly, is quite hard.
And all of this works 60% of the time, every time.
Anyways, that was somewhat the summary of the last 6 months building my exocomp agentic environment. And it's still not satisfying to work with.
That might've crossed their minds but that wouldn't move their hand, not even a finger. Politics is the primary driver here, here's the deal:
AI is the new Internet
China foresaw a world where they'd be blocked from it and Anthropic's ongoing attempt to block their own country form it shows how right the Chinese were.
And driving out US manufacturers isn’t even the main goal for China. They know their huge risk on reliance on petroleum and was doing everything they can to mitigate that. Building out a huge solar manufacturing base is their answer. Now they are reducing petro imports YoY.
Don’t get me wrong, I am glad they are doing it, I personally use open source models. In part to not spend money on the other APIs. So it’s clear that some percentage of what would be paying uses choose to not pay. The other part of opensource is free community labor. How much development work did Facebook get for free around the core infrastructure of react by open sourcing it? A massive amount that they did pay for but benefit from.
The point is, it may benefit society, and yet that social benefit wasn’t the motive for them releasing it as open source.
Why? I don’t get it. Open weight models enabled a lot more foundational model trainings. I believe R1 was benefited from llama.
The proliferation of alternative, open weight models in turn put heat on the leading labs and forced them to make better models, or squeeze more out of slowing improvements on model capabilities through innovation on harness.
And eventually we the common people benefit, exactly from these competitions
That would be true _if_ they were forced to open source all their code, but it isn’t today.
> Even if, say, google open sources its whole search infrastructure, it does not at all means you can just host your own due to the huge hardware requirements
You can’t but Acme Inc and other bigcorps could, and Google’s margins would evaporate overnight.
Besides that, what you say may be true from the google's perspective. From a user(which I am) perspective, Google and Microsoft and other big corps have proven again and again with their actions that they cannot be trusted, just refer to https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html.
The case that is largely nonsense is the egress pricing on direct connects since beyond the circuit costs, which the customer pay, there’s no costs for aws not already on the customer regardless. It also makes DC friction weird in that you are incentivized to NOT move storage before compute.
Even if you consider profit motive, what is the profit motive for corporate contributions to open source? The same applies here.
They are already.
> and should open source all of their platforms
Most of the cloud platforms are open source. Linux, container, k8s… it’s entirely possible for someone to build and deploy their private cloud if they have the resources.
> and eliminate egress fees
What does it mean? If I sign up for cloud service I am only bound to the contract terms. If I am PAYGO I can switch anytime.
Linux isn't a cloud platform and neither is Docker.
Kubernetes was created specifically to create a way in against AWS' de facto public cloud monopoly. The Cloud Native Compute Foundation is a classic "alliance of smaller players uses open-source and interoperability as a wedge against an incumbent that threatens hegemony".
> it’s entirely possible for someone to build and deploy their private cloud if they have the resources.
What is there for that, really? Basically just OpenStack?
Why someone wants to do that is not my concern. But not being able to is.
show me from which country or company did the Chinese copied their EV techs, batteries, drones, robotics etc. for their military gears, show me show they copied their J-36 and J-50 fighter jets, Type-055 destroyers, YJ-21 missile and the most recent 09x sub.
time to stop living your socially isolated life and start reading stuff other than whatever fed to you by your brainwashing media.
How does open sourcing a Claude code clone drive adoption of anything that is a monopoly or even commercially related? Instead it seems like an attempt to undermine US AI companies.
That being said I am increasingly skeptical of how the US leaders are converging on creating monopolies and going deeper into the app layer that means they will end up owning everything rather than being the substrate of a competitive and flourishing ecosystem.
If it were up to me I would implement a regulation that 1) AI labs can’t own inference hardware, data centers would be a regulated utility like electricity and the internet required to provide open access third party safety, guardrails and audit, 2) inference providers can’t build apps beyond serving API requests 3) training data sets are required to be open sourced within 3 years of training a model.
What we are doing now is allowing vertical and horizontal integration of the hardware, training, inference and application layer. Last time we did that standard oil ended up owning the rail network, pipelines, oil fields, gas stations and refineries. Go see how that worked out for society.
There's a very strong overlap with male gamers, who also think everything involving sophisticated engineering and design should be cheaper than a cup of coffee.
Just call it out and maybe we can collectively choose to towards a culture that doesn't encourage such shameless behavior or perverted values.
They might be cheap but they surely aren't stupid. They sure know who not to trust, security beats imaginary profits promised by cheap used-car salesmen who did move software jobs to wherever they could spare a dime.
And you want us to defend their current profits which they swear to use for the removal of the remaining software jobs...
That said I am a cheap bastard.
Imagine personal computers and open source operating systems completely don’t exist. What you can do on a pc today, you have to always do it on a thin client always connected to a main frame run by a selected few. Everything you do is recorded and subjected to at least 30 days of retention and inspection.
Imagine every car is completely not customer serviceable and have to be connected to one of the three manufacturers in order to operate. Everywhere you go is recorded. The manufacturer may decided the place you want to go is inappropriate for you to go.
the internet is full of semi skilled "developers" who should never be developers in the first place.
What? It’s actually insane that they haven’t yet.
I don’t like changing tools. What engineer does? I want to learn one tool and tune it to my exact preferences. Proprietary vendor tools are not portable and I avoid them.
Either Anthropic or OpenAI could drop the first-to-market open coding harness tomorrow and it would be as big as VSCode, it would be the standard platform everyone builds stuff on.
Also, leadership at MSFT has talked quite a bit about their strategy with VS Code and it’s exactly what I was describing above (which is why I used it as an example). They give it away for free so that they can control the ecosystem.