"Not ideal for users" is a fun way to describe what is essentially theft.
6,932 karma · joined June 21, 2024
Probably something like this?
I don't think that's true.
Well, no. These are averages. Obviously, some people take more sick days than others; e.g. women with severe period pains might take days off each month.
> Shouldn't the availability of lots of sick time and your "superior" healthcare system decrease your illness levels?
Sick days are not just for "illness", so they aren't an indicator for overall health.
> Doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
I could make a snarky response about US education or something, but instead, I just want to point out that I find it strange how people in bad situations often defend their circumstances, rather than trying to change them.
Ffs, just put this on apps.proton.me or something so I actually know it's real!
Including sick days makes the calculation worse, not better. Sick days typically don't exist in Europe. If you're sick, you obviously just don't go to work. What's the point of infecting the whole office?
On average, workers in Europe take about 2 to 3 weeks off each year due to sickness in addition to their vacation. In fact, if you're sick during vacation, that doesn't count as vacation time, at least in some European countries.
It seems like user numbers are stagnating, and the ad play isn't working out so far. Where is the revenue growth coming from? I don't think API can be the answer, because API has absolutely no switching costs.
> The obvious way to recoup spend is to grow, rugpull by cranking up costs 6x
Presumably, that was the plan, but I don't see how that can possibly work with how quickly the Chinese models caught up.
I'm not sure if you're not aware of what he's referencing there, but the specific example he brings up is that Anthropic ostensibly kept pricing identical with new models, but changed the tokenizer, which made the model use more tokens for the same input and output text. So that's a case where, prima facie, the cost per task increased. Of course, this also depends on how verbose the model is and what harness you use, and so on.
Correct me if I'm wrong; I think you believe that he makes an argument like "OpenAI decreased API pricing, but this decrease was actually secretly an increase in cost." But he does not. He's saying that even though cost-per-token is going down overall, the actual cost of using LLMs is in many cases going up, because there isn't a direct causal relationship between cost-per-token and the total cost of using LLMs.
And he's entirely correct about that.
If you don't know what's going on, this blog post is nonsensical and makes OpenAI look weird.
If you do know what's going on, you'll immediately notice they don't address 80% of the stuff Apple is accusing them of, which makes OpenAI look dishonest.
It just seems incredibly unprofessional and ill-considered.
If you continue reading, he explains it in the next sentence.
You gotta watch something, because harnesses have changed how you can look at the cost structure of these things. If you look at cost per million tokens, it might look lower, but if the model consumes four times as many tokens in order to deliver a meaningful result, it's not cheaper. And so, Tom Claburn, one of our senior software reporters, had an excellent piece looking at how Anthropic's latest models use a tremendous number of tokens in order to deliver the result. So, sure, OpenAI's latest models might look less expensive from an API standpoint, which is great for marketing, but if it's using twice as many tokens, that's not the same thing. And that's somewhat dependent on the harness, but it's also dependent on how much reasoning effort is put into it, how they're routing the models.
> This is poorly stated in the podcast, but the underlying point is correct: while cost-per-token is going down, overall token use is way up. This is causing the cost of using LLMs in corporations to skyrocket.
No, my first comment is this:
> Everyone who buys an Android phone. This is about the opposite, an option to buy a phone that does not do that.
It doesn't say anything about "bootleg."
> Obviously you didn't understand what I had written so I had to call you on that
Again, please stop insulting me.
> You may feel insulted, does not mean that I am insulting you.
Look, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's really difficult. Do you genuinely not understand that the following things you said are insulting?
"So pedantic, you must be fun at parties."
"you are being overly pedantic while being wrong at the same time. You might find this difficult to accept but I'm just calling it."
I do understand that some people lack social awareness and therefore don't understand when they are being insulting, so it's possible that you genuinely do not realize how you come across. I am telling you now, though, that saying things like these is, in fact, insulting, regardless of your intent. So if you genuinely did not intend to insult me, I hope you will now stop writing stuff like that.
> I said bootleg Android didnt I?
And you're still doing it. Just let it go. It doesn't matter, your argument is wrong either way.
Also, please stop insulting me.
To what end? Do you think that kind of approach convinces anyone?
There is no "fake android," either. Your whole argument is based on two false premises.