solumunus

Obviously they simply mean highly talented compared to their peers.

Urgent is an exaggeration I suppose. I have a high standard of customer service so to me it’s urgent, but the data was corrupted for 3 months before anyone noticed so it wasn’t critical.

Ok I guess we just suck, whatever. We and our customers are very happy.

Are you claiming you’ve never been responsible for a bug that caused data corruption? Perhaps not, but it’s hardly a novel post-LLM bug. It’s regular stuff and obviously you know that.

How is it destabilising? Do you purely mean China have exposed ill thought out investments? That’s capitalism my guy. The market is working as intended.

When the investments fail there will be volatility but it’s hardly existential for the US. Open models are good for the whole world, I would argue it’s a net positive for individuals.

I feel sorry for anyone who isn’t experiencing the gains I’m experiencing. I can see why AI could suck in massive teams, or software with very messy and inconsistent architecture. As a 2 man developer team working on a mono repo with clear and simple architecture, consistent schema conventions, and heavy context available, it’s becoming ludicrous how fast we can pump out stable features. We must be 3-4x faster at this point. I had estimated that I would have to take on at least 2 or 3 more developers at X customers, now it seems at even double that quantity of customers we’ll be absolutely fine with just 2 developers. It’s been a tremendous boon for my small business, beyond any possible imagination. And then all the time I hear the claim that there’s no productivity gain to be had. I guess me and my customers are living some kind of mass delusion.

Just the other day there was data corruption discovered and a relatively urgent fix required. Just a few years ago I would have been working deep into the night to make sure everything was fixed for the morning. Within an hour Fable had it all wrapped up neatly and the fix deployed…

I’m not convinced that it’s a bad thing. What is your actual argument?

That tickled me!

Get your violins out folks.

That’s never been the case, you were getting bad information.

Please buy our IPO before it crashes so we can be billionaires.

I do somewhat agree. I can only speculate that they're pumping out new features incredibly fast and they don't want to fall a month behind the competition.

Isn’t Fable just a restricted version of Mythos?

I’m glad we have a competent and trustworthy administration to guide us through this inevitable collapse.

What do you mean by “they spent $ telling everyone that”? If anything, they told everyone that to receive $ in investments. Those statements are pure PR hype.

It has the same effect as reasoning. Its reasoning in a practical sense if not a philosophical one, and that’s what most people care about.

Genuinely Fable would do a decent job.

True.

My app is written in TypeScript. With agents I could rewrite it in Rust, I just don’t need to so I don’t. It doesn’t warrant that level of performance and the business logic is more digestible in its current form. Given the amount of reviewing I need to do now, readability is worth more than performance. There are always tradeoffs.

Are you implying that them attempting a Rust rewrite would fail, and this is why they’re not doing it?

Fair enough.

No, I don’t think so, and searching seems to confirm my view. Inconvenience of switching is just one aspect.

There’s little difference between Coke and Pepsi and the barrier to switching is nil, yet clearly the products have stickiness. People have slight preferences and become familiar with the brand and then engagement becomes habitual.

The effects on margins are irrelevant to this.

I think they stickiness is less about the difficulty of switching and more about the lack of desire. I’ve been using Claude since day one, it works well and I’m happy, I like it. I’m sure Codex is good too. Switching from one to the other certainly isn’t going to be a game changer, the discourse shows me the differences are marginal.

Probably the only reasons I would seek change are economical.

The valuations are unjustified even at the prices they’re charging now.

They’re going to try their best to offload these investments into our pensions before the inevitable crash.

I just did some brief research on this using Perplexity. I’m failing to see how partial pilots of basic income “didn’t work”, what exactly do you mean by that?

It’s poetic.

For luxury brand bags that cost $2-10k you pay around $300-600 for high quality counterfeits, but they really are almost identical. Sometimes they are higher quality.

Exactly. Their tech choices were not an issue because other things mattered more to users.

I think the point is that people still continued to use it above everything else regardless.

Such a counting method doesn’t explain that incredible growth. Do you think day by day huge portions of users are using additional devices in perpetuity?

Surely the ability to drive or work wood is separate to the knowledge required to gain the ability? An LLM can explain how to drive, how a car works, wood working processes… Some knowledge is difficult to communicate through text, and consumption of text might be a poor way to gain the ability to use it, but the knowledge is there?

Thanks for the models guys, sorry for your losses. Once this reality becomes mainstream and undeniable, surely the bubble pops and then what then. Future model development stops? Becomes private? Becomes a public effort?