benterix

What for, exactly?

Let me offer an alternative: logical reasoning.

1. Increased revenue normally means increased usage. [We don't dispute that, right?]

2. Increased usage normally means increased cost.

3. There is an exception to 2: if Anthropic made a gigantic discovery and was able to reduce the cost while increasing the usage - but since it would be in their best interests, they would announce this information and brag about it for months, but they haven't (what they do is just playing the quantization game all labs do, but this is beside the point).

4. Hence, we have very solid reasons to assume their costs increased.

The biggest disadvantage of Jev is that it's a proprietary product and you need to send them your data. A bespoke solution makes much more sense in many scenarios.

> The only option on the table is to force regulation to impose open source ban

This makes zero sense.

1. Open source models are already out there and they are good. Good luck with banning their use.

2. Any ban is a local ban, the best Trump can do is to coerce its allies (whose number seems to be dwindling week by week). Meanwhile China and co. will progress anyway.

3. What about the common sense and instead of saying "agent did it" we return to the times where the person using a tool was responsible for using it in the first place? And if the vendor of the tool is unable to make it safe to use (well, they well do, but they don't want to do it as the functionality is limited), it should be accompanied by a warning with a clear explanation of who exactly is responsible.

4. There is no guarantee the next generation of models will "mature" to the point of not having these flaws; on the contrary, the evidence so far shows the opposite.

The next logical step would be to have a separate card for each Unix utility.

That could be a factor for sure, but this iOS upgrade basically broke mu iPhone as switching between apps got noticeably slower and sometimes the UI gets stuck for a second or two especially when switching between the camera and other apps. I'm so sorry I gave in and installed it.

It's not a problem at all. It's only for the things I care about and I consider important for a couple of reasons (maintaining and developing mental models etc.).

I have no problem with other people outsourcing their intelligence to me, I've been doing this for years. But I prefer not to outsource my intelligence, at least not for things I care about, for various reasons.

> we'd be going back to writing code by hand

Well, as as SWE who writes code by hand and has no intention to outsource their intelligence to any entity, I felt slightly offended by "back".

> Microsoft to instantly get your full name, address, email, phone number, and any other data associated with your Microsoft account.

Provided you bent the knee and created a Microsoft account.

LOL. A thief accusing someone else of theft.

Also, I love their choice of words. Like "distillation against", "stealing proprietary technology" - it's all aimed at certain people.

> People want to get spoon fed all information they need, especially since AI - no?

It's definitely true to some extent, but you can't generalize "people" to some uniform group, we have various needs.

There is a lot of distrust against Google and Microsoft here, also when they opensource stuff, and Chromium and AOSP are great counterexamples.

> human rights and all that rubbish

While I understand your point, please think a bit how you formulated the sentence above.

I heard this false justification already in 2007, in spite of many customers asking for it.

Incidentaly, smaller competitors solved this issue decades ago, while the big cloud decided it is more convenient never to implement it.

They clearly know it but have to pretend otherwise to keep the money flowing.

> I speak as I think and I type and as I speak, so I do uses em-dashes.

I'm sorry to break it to you but the sentence you just wrote doesn't contain any —s.

Suppose someone wants to play this game, what's the point? Not to mention the fact that Gnome, even though is not a GNU project, literally means GNU Network Object Model Environment.

> Eventually the pricing should be more stable.

Why do you think so? This game can be played forever, you just need strong marketing and orgs gullible enough to pay a higher price for a minor upgrade.

> As it turns out, when someone (your wife) gets arrested and tells you to do "whatever you need to do" and "move whatever you need to move at the house", it is highly illegal to then proceed to do so.

If it was my wife, I'd probably do my best to save her.

> Actually USSR pushed a lot of soft power and spent real money behind it. Especially the authors whose narratives didn't directly violate the narrative of the Party.

Do you have any sources for that? I'd like to read about it.

It would be nice but I have no illusions, it won't happen.

One of the problems is that the term itself got muddled to the point of becoming almost meaningless. It covers anything from pattern recognition, classification, to diffusion models. But the fact remains that many people have a love/hate relationship with LLMs.

> The per token costs are still dramatically subsidized. The major AI models are priced below cost especially when accounting for depreciation.

Not sure if we can confidently say that unless the first of these companies goes public.

OTOH... We know these plans are heavily subsidized, and we're happy to use them to the limits. At some point they will run out of investor money and will have to readjust. Do you think people using the existing plans will switch to per-API-call payments? Or, how many of them will?

Given enormous competition and good progress on the part of the Chinese and open models, I'd say let's enjoy the situation while it lasts. It's like chap Uber drives a decade ago subsidized by Saudi money. I have no sympathy neither for sama/amodei nor people who invest in their companies, and happy to use their resources in this crazy show where everybody pretends something and pushes their own agenda.

Yeah LLMs/GenAI is the current hype but it's just a tiny fragment of the general landscape.

> the US and its allies

Which allies?

Well, you can start with this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/11/musk-v-opena...

I'd say it's almost impossible at that point. Specifically, Altman said so many lies in the past that people stopped believing anything he says.

I think the core of this distrust is the fact that these companies positioned themselves against humanity from the start by saying people will lose most jobs etc. Not only it didn't happen, but many people feel several aspects of their lives got worse because of LLMs, in spite of obvious advantages. So the distrust and reluctance are real.

> People think otherwise with AI partly because Anthropic kept telling us that they didn't have to write code or review code any more for most of their work. Their agent swarms just comb through their github, slack and wikis to figure out what to do next, and another swarm of agents just review, test, merge, deploy, A/B test, and revert the code. Boris alone merged nearly 300 PRs in the past week (or two?).

Apart from many other issues with this, heavily subsidized subscription plans won't last forever, and if you start burning your own money on tokens in this way, you'll soon realize it's terribly inefficient.