What is the product here? Everything expect getting a teammate to review is a 3 simple prompts + beads.
5,170 karma · joined August 13, 2021
The forest was put up specifically to be cut down. The default state for these trees was to be cut down.
If you can’t see the difference between this and clear cutting of something like an old growth forest, then there’s nothing left worth saying to you.
> man made logging forest
This isn't an old growth forest, these are trees planted specifically to be cut down.
As for the other cases, I don’t see a realistic path for Valve. Once they start kicking knockoffs they will have to draw a line, and it won’t end up being based on whether the action is actually illegal.
Is cloning the games in this way illegal? Has there been a precedent set?
I believe oh-my-pi will be able to ingest your Claude and codex conversations, count tokens, and then assign API-equivalent rates to them. May be worth looking into.
I’m not sure I see how. Subsidy got cut by half. But in the meantime 6.1 came out which uses 25% fewer tokens than 5.6 and costs 1/3 as much per task.
So for 1/2 the budget you use to have with 5.6 on the old plan, you can do more with 6.1. I don’t see that as a problem.
Second of all, barring more cuts, yes I do think the $20 and $100 plans do deliver more tasks because the models have gotten cheaper in the meanwhile (like this very announcement).
> Are they delivering 50% more than Anthropic per token?
So say the public benchmarks. Pull up artificial analysis, “Cost (USD) to run all evaluations in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index”:
Sol 6.1 (max): $1,082 Opus 5.5 (max): $8,708 Sonnet 5.5 (max): $7,260
>7x difference in cost for the same tasks.
> Do you really think that Opus uses 3x as many tokens as Sol per task? I don't.
You don’t have to speculate. Pull up artificial analysis, pick either opus or sol and scroll down to total tokens and to total price. Opus (and sonnet) use 4x the tokens and 7x the dollars.
That difference alone removes the difference that semi analysis found.
But that’s irrelevant. Post in your own language and let others translate.
> If by "AI Slop" you mean
It sounds like you're taking this the wrong way.
My point is: they have problems with people posting too much AI slop. Native speakers, or even proficient speakers, (well readers) can tell the difference between ai slop and non-slop. So they could at least in theory know if the content they're about to post is slop and change it.
Non-native speakers cannot tell if the thing the AI spit out is as articulate as they were in their nature language, or if it's turned it into English slop.
Then it gets posted to reddit. How does a reddit mod differentiate <someone who just generated slop and posted it> from <non native speaker who used AI to write in English, but ended up with slop since they can't very the result>? My point is that you can't differentiate the too, certainly not when the first group can claim their non-native speakers. So the only workable option here is for non-native speakers to post in their language and for the readers to translate on their end. This, mind you, is how several social media platforms already work,
I agree that it impacts non-English speakers more. But what is the solution here? How would one, as a moderator, stop the AI slop they want to get rid of, if they provide a carve out for anyone claiming to be a non-native speaker?
I don't know if they'll outright ban posts in other languages, but it sounds like AI-translations are banned for the same reason that AI-written content is banned.
As a software dev, if I'm using codex at home and I'm happy with it, I'll likely choose it at work as well since I don't have to relearn the quirks of other models.
The only subsidization that matters is if they are selling the tokens for a loss.
Yes the $200 plan provides more than $200 of tokens, but that doesn't mean that it's losing money, either on average or on a case by case basis. The realistic alternative isn't that every $200-plan-user pays the full Api price, it's that they pay Anthropic $0.
Come on. You know very well what we're talking about. This whole discussion started about software. Can I can load any app I want? Can I remove any app I want? I can remove their ads from my phone?
No of course not. I can put my app on my phone only if they bless it. I can't sell an app to another iPhone user and have them use it without apple's blessing. I can't remove the ads they keep spamming me for iCloud, or whatever service they release this month.
And please don't tell me it's because I get a license rather than a purchase since that's exactly my point. You wouldn't accept a license agreement for your table, and there would be outrage and major public backlash if any they tried; "Here's your made in china table, you are not allowed to place an American flag on it".
But because it's sprinkled with magic software dust, we have people in comment threads simping for the right of companies to do this to their customers.
> Hacking isn't a human right.
Hacking is such a loaded term for "the right to use the thing I purchased how I see fit".
> Go buy a different phone if you don't like Apple's phones. There are a bunch to choose from.
This is beside the point (and may not always be true). The ability for the manufacturer of a thing I bought and ostensibly own to tell me how to use my property.
It's really not that hard to understand. The fact that it's a computer doesn't change anything.
These clearly anti-consumer practices should just be illegal.