JimmaDaRustla

skill issue

Why would a singe system require 3 full-time dev ops?

> ...but the human reviewing, directing, and course-correcting feels worse, not better.

Has this person ever been a design or tech-lead for a team? I'm still tired and I've moved on from that role over 5 years ago. Gathering requirements, designing a solution, implementing as tickets, handing off to developers, staying involved in the feedback loop, then reviewing the code and iterating on PRs is absolutely exhausting. The only thing greater than the naive take that HITM is tiring is the privilege to not understand how asinine it is.

K

It's just exposing the dumb

AS IF THEY POST THIS WHILE THEIR SEARCH IS BROKEN, what a circus

K

Ah - xhigh is probably what you want. Their docs suggest xhigh for agentic coding, though judging by their blog high should be better than 4.6 max (ymmv)

I've always used high, so maybe I should be using xhigh

> were fine on max before this

Ya...you may be who I'm talking about though (if you're speaking from experience). If your methodology is "I used 4.6 max, so I'm going to try 4.7 max" this is fully on you - 4.7 max is not equivalent to 4.6 max, you want 4.7 xhigh.

From their docs:

max: Max effort can deliver performance gains in some use cases, but may show diminishing returns from increased token usage. This setting can also sometimes be prone to overthinking. We recommend testing max effort for intelligence-demanding tasks.

xhigh (new): Extra high effort is the best setting for most coding and agentic use cases.

What was your level methodology and results? Can't just post "too expensive" and not explain how you went about it.

I'm mind blown people are complaining about token consumption and not communicating what thinking level they're using - if cost is a concern and you're paying any attention, you'd be starting with medium and seeing if you can get better results with less tokens. Every person complaining about token usage seem to have no methodology - probably using max and completely oblivious.

Am I dumb, or are they not explaining what level thinking they're using? We all read the Anthropic blog post yesterday - 4.7 max consumes/produces an incredible number of tokens and it's not equivalent to 4.6 max; xhigh is the new "max".

I tried creating a whatsapp "bot" which would just send notifications for my Jellyfin server. It was a bureaucratic nightmare - creating dev accounts, creating some sort of "project", then it was requiring I register it as a business as though the only valid use case for creating an app for WhatsApp is a business, then it required me to verify my identify and upload documents.

I just switched to Signal.

Again? This happened like 6 or 7 years ago. I had so many issues with macOS in the few years I was forced to use a MacBook that I refused to use it. Not surprised to see this stuff still happening.

Ya, how's that constitution concept working out for the USA?

The recording for the one at the golden gate bridge made me laugh.

Bullish

funny, but poorly coded because there's not friction coefficient it seems - just clicking into the applet, everything eventually just falls over

Bro, I'm a software developer, it's not the fucking AI making me boring.

Disingenuous or not, it was a bad analogy because it inferred that it was intentionally being abused which is completely false. The proof of that is this original post - Anthropic did not clearly (or even at all) identify how you could use your tokens with the subscription regardless of their intentions.

You're now misinterpreting my argument and misrepresenting it. I did not, in any way, suggest that Anthropic was "pulling the rug" to its users nor that they were entitled to use their tokens using the API with third parties. Full stop.

Of course, third-party API usage wasn't intended to be allowed for consuming subscription tokens. This is exactly what my analogy was structured to explain; a Disneyland season pass isn't intended to be used solely for parking. Anthropic did not intend for subscription tokens to be consumed by third-parties the same way users did not intend to abuse the subscription to derive more value than what was allotted to them. Your analogy missed that last part, which is absolutely crucial to understand.

I don't understand how you're making the exact arguments I'm making, then somehow completely misunderstanding what's being said.

Please show me where any AI company is currently turning a profit with their current offering and price structure, then let's have that conversation.

Disingenuous analogy.

It's more buying a season pass for Disneyland, then getting told you can't park for free if you're entering the park even though free parking is included with the pass. Still not unreasonable, but brings to light the intention of the tool is to force the user into an ecosystem rather.

Incorrect, the third-party usage was already blocked (banned) but it wasn't officially communicated or documented. This post is simply identifying that official communication rather than the inference of actual functionality.

My crude metaphor to explain to my family is gasoline has just been invented and we're all being lent Bentley's to get us addicted to driving everywhere. Eventually we won't be given free Bentley's, and someone is going to be holding the bag when the infinite money machine finally has a hiccup. The tech giants are hoping their gasoline is the one that we all crave when we're left depending on driving everywhere and the costs go soaring.

We need this for social media.

I've theorized what a solution would look like, though it'd have a different end goal to ignore bots so true discourse could be achieved. The theorized solution would be less communal though - instead, institutions would be "vouchers" and be provided the ability to confirm individuals as a real person. This could be colleges, workplaces, unions, banks, etc. There'd be no "denouncing", only "vouching" the individual as a real person. The individual's identity would never exposed - social media platforms would use a key, such as an e-mail, to verify the individual's existence as a real person, not their identity. Platforms could identify what rules would qualify an individual's recognized "existence", such as what institutions they allow, minimum number of institutions, etc. In theory, the individual "existence" could be built before they ever register for a platform. This could go way beyond social media platforms too - some examples could be vetting job applications, accepting contributors on OSS projects.

This would create a digital fingerprint of a real individual using their unique identifiers (email, phone number, etc) which may be undesirable, but individuals would absolutely have the ability to revoke their unique identifiers from participating in the program if they desire.

They don't know, they're just projecting.

What an ignorant thing to say. Clio? Wealthsimple? 1Password? Hootsuite? Lightspeed? Ecobee? SkipTheDishes? Those are just off the top of my head.

And what's this about running a small business? I run one, no issues here. Couple employees, file my taxes...nothing special about running a business.

[flagged]

It doesn't PREVENT them from learning anything - said properly, it lets developers become lazy and miss important learning opportunities. That's not AIs fault.

k