motbus3

Yeah! I can't believe people know basics about cartels, trusts and dumping.

> They've essentially gotten roped into maintaining a huge chunk of internet infrastructure, for free

What you mean for free? First, they have all the data they get from you. They now track you even when you are not using your phone. They can/could know if you are doing your number 2 regularly or not only.

They control how the internet moves. Https? Sure can enforce. Trackers, etags ? Why not.

They sell every single bit of information on you for a good price. And now they are even more friends with a very good orange buyer. They have a TOS on you that they can chop and sell you whenever they want and you can't complain.

What you mean for free? Maybe for you it seems free, but people are paying them premium for lots of stuff.

Google used to be admired by the innovation and good ideas that shaped the world to a better world. Now they are still shaping the world, but not for everyone

Does it really count? Honest question.

I mean, if I interview a candidate who put such thing on the CV, it wouldn't matter, but if it did, I would make 300% sure to ask him all the ins and outs. I think it would be plain stupid to expose that you didn't do that instead of showing smaller collaboration that you completely understand

We learned from the past litellm security incident that there are tons of compromised/fake GitHub stars (which was known from the past due to the star farms)

I don't see vibe coders trying to push PRs in good faith in a old emulator. Could it be that the sheer amount of PRs and eventually a bad PR in the middle is being used to compromise repositories?

Not really... They can control direct sales by controlling discounts.

See what is happening on all major store chains. They have a original price that is frequently discounted so they don't say they are increasing prices.

See Sony PS store. Technically they have same price but personalised discounts.

Instead of telling llm the full command line to do the tests, add a script run_tests.sh, same for linting or whatever. Output errors to a file and only output the filename when there are errors to check.

Add a hook of your preference to run those items when task is over.

To be honest, I also have a skill for Claude for that but not because Claude needs it but so it avoid trying to figuring out how to run. On claude.md I instruct it to leave the execution to the hooks instead (unless debugging)

I use rtk and caveman when in the mood but mostly to remove the obnoxious verbosity of Claude. I tested both for weeks and they didn't really saved that much money for Opus model.

I have zero base to prove but reading the thinking output, when you set the effort to high or more, it start repeating stuff over and over...

Opus 4.7 seems geared towards taking the most money possible. Tasks that opus 4.6 and sonnet 4.6 did in X tokens, opus will take 2X to 3X and the final cold isn't much better.

I think your argument makes sense but my understanding is that adding the document to the context and spitting it back is prone to corruption in any scenario.

I think this is closely related to other sources saying that even if you have huge context the attention mechanism itself is not back referencing thus any tasks related to bigger contexts are prone to errors.

because I have some preconception of this maybe I am assuming this is what they were saying. Am I missing something ?

I wonder if they remove encryption how can they ensure who are the authors. Will they still apply all the certificates?

I will tell you all something.

For months, I've read all blog posts by anthropic and used Claude code for couple of big projects.

I used every single trick in the books. I went all way to organise and measure. For somethings I measured how I felt the experience was and how much money I spent after adopting a set of techniques.

So far, it appears to me that the only thing that makes sense is to have few hooks and scripts that mitigate the stupid token consumption like using code indexers instead of grep. And this is only cost related, I saw it fluctuate so much I couldn't distinguish a single thing that really made the code better that was consistent.

And to be clear Claude 4.7 is bad. double the money daily and it has been the one experiment where I consistently ended my day frustrated on how it developed poor code. It did follow the instructions, in the worst and most expensive way. Man... It almost seems that it spits more token on purpose....

Oh yeah. And whenever you say "add openai integration it kinda keeps strongly suggesting to actually use anthropic models... F annoying. How do I don't it does not force libraries based on commercial agreements rather than best specification for the case.

This last week I switched to use Deepseek V4 pro, and heck yeah, that's better experience

It is understandable but you can also use a simpler browser for common things and use chrome for banking or things like that

I strongly suggest people move away from chrome. They lost all sense of respect.

I know it is a small move, but as it happened when chrome started, this opens opportunities for other players

But what situation seems to good to enable xhigh?

This is anecdotic but I already worked on a company who fired staff to hire "specialized" consultants who were cheaper and more specialized, only to see their former members to join as consultants. After years of this practice they also concluded there was no saving nor benefit on the strategy but couldn't rehire the people

The truth is that you can increase prices by 50% and if you loose 50% of sales you are still in a good place as your costs also drop.

They have little uncertainty to work with, they don't need their consumers as much.

They're continuing their anti consumer policies

We decided that we will use ai to automate stuff and to connect people but not for content. We are paying the price of it. That search engine that shall not be named deeply punished us for it.

I don't think so. The whole car is a predatory platform. I do the best I can to avoid doing business with people who thinks such practices are acceptable.

I don't really care if the package itself is cool or anything... I think people incentive too much this sort of anti consumer practices

The company I work for has a deep rooted community side and despite what big techs do, I am 100% confident the only aspects we have in community features are for the user benefit. No gray area. Just that.

Since the AI sloppification we lost considerable amount of traffic to bots. But worse than that, we lost users who tended to contribute back with others.

We can leverage multiple ways of exposing community data to members, so it is not that we are loss because of that, but more in the fact that we have 30y or so of good feedback on how the community around the platform was good for people and now everything is at risk...

Don't get me wrong, my work is work... There are premium features and else, but the amount of value one can get for free is what the platform is known for. And we know many people use it for free for years and when they need or can they subscribe and mostly stay for years and years.

The fact people are losing those connections is depressing to me

I wouldn't be excited when their cars comes with a spy package that sells every information when your are in it.

It won't take years for they to think that they can pry in private conversations in the car for whatever purpose they want

I know personally a case of a engineer who was told to do something despite all the legal problems because the company had lawyers for a reason

The only reason they are doing it is because there are regulation for people but not for machines.

That's the start of the push for full identity validation as we all predicted.

I'm thinking about your comment... It put many wheels to spin...

Tldr; I think the don't care about what will happen to the company in medium or long term.

---

Are any of those companies looking for stability or sustainability?

I have the impression they are completely aware of the diminished return effects and they will explore the moment to the fullest of their capabilities promising even more absurd things when the results are even smaller.

I do agree there is a considerable improvement comparing from a year ago but definitely not ground shaking as it was from the year before to the last.

Many of the promises turns out to be empty or at least having huge number of asterisks to it.

I think there are flags everywhere. From minor things such as everyone using different benchmarks or plotting performance differences on weird choices os axis and ordering.

Other mild things such as promoting the "system" created a compiler from scratch when such compiler does not even do a hello world and runs and gave output binaries running 300x then the counterparts.

(I am aware there was a misusage of the agentic benchmark to build a compiler but there was an active choice on how to tell the story. Given other movements I am not quite sure if I believe it was an accident)

There are other red flags such as people rolling back to previous versions of models because they can't get the new one to work properly.

Other situations such as the affirmations that they have such "dangerous" model that apparently seems to be more of a benchmark trick than real results with <100B models being able to replicate the benchmark results only by changing the methodology.

I don't think we are yet in the turning point where everything will collapse but my feeling is that we are going in that direction unless something that makes these models much more intelligent AND efficient.

It makes sense to not hire a person when you can have a machine for the same job for the same price. But AI prices are getting higher than the returns do the margins for it to be a sensible choice are getting smaller.

That all said, I say again that I think that they are completely aware of this effect. Not because they understand the technology but because this happens more frequently than not. Because of this, I don't think they care to be sustainable. All of them,smell that they will take the money and leave the ship to sink.

Maybe because it is not my first language, but I don't mean they are doing, I am saying they can do it and it is not that difficult.

Pharmacies in my home country are notorious for making personalised prices. Some big brand grocery stores here have "fiddly" cards and face tracking.

They can easily manipulate prices to make you register yourself and then make discount based on some personalisation metric.

We are all used to it though Amzn and others. We just don't realise that all that is needed for it to get to your basket is that one of them to do it and others to follow.

We have seen many recent examples of companies applying abusive corporate practices and instead of capitalising on it, the competitors just follow with some excuse...

I know people say it is unprofitable but I wonder if there is a way to verify it is truly is. I will not say any details but I worked for a giant company which was barely making money YoY but somehow the bonuses for heads were bigger and bigger given a proxy metric related to profit.

There are way too many ways companies arrange to pay themselves and never be profitable to avoid taxes.

I can strongly state that it is 100% possible to do ip67 with removable batteries in the sense people general mean.

That said, I am afraid how one can play with the definition of removable. Everything is removable given enough force.

If you notice, if you said is correct, this means it would be incredibly easy to yank your ownership of GTA 5 simply by retiring denuvo related account.

All that would be publicised would be " GTA 5 denuvo key license is now over" and people would not know

They charge more for everyone there. Now they are able to charge more for you

And also to eliminate all competition who doesn't have enough money to compete

It is unfortunate to all of us, but I think you are right. And the more they go with the conversation they are the victims the worse it will get.

Yes. I it was it. Also in general, people have good and bad feelings about things even if not completely rational. For example, I wonder how if people think this sensible or fair. If they think people who are already there might be victim or if somehow it would allow the overtake of basic rights.