byzantinegene

until they put their money where their mouth is

claude code is free to use, you can use claude code with any non-anthropic model, so harness stickiness doesn't benefit the AI labs at all.

the reselling of fixed price plans by resellers are causing american labs to lose alot of money and that's why they're trying really hard to stamp it down.

it's not like the protests are working anyway

does demolishing homes to build data centers count?

guess that's what AI trained itself on

or i can just not do it? this absolute garbage of a music video is not worth a single cent, let alone a $100.

more features doesn't mean anything if they don't translate into economic value, refactoring prs and dependency updates are easily automated now and it saves alot of productivity, but if you compare the costs and economic value gained it might not actually justify enterprise token spending.

when they IPO, their financials will be under scrutiny, and exponential revenue growth would be required to justify their trillion dollar valuation

that's why i mostly use it for asynchronous work, the inefficiency is something i can bear with because the subscription costs are dirt cheap. if it's token-based, it wouldn't make financial sense.

churning out assembly code would cost far more in tokens, wouldn't make financial sense for the improved performance which doens't matter that much for most use cases.

they use React to render their TUI :)

would i hire a phd grad if they cost the same as a degree holder? sure, why not. but if they cost twice as much?

enterprises are not dumb, they look at the cost of their ai investment and reevaluate it every quarter. Uber recently capped their AI spending per employee, and then there's this article a couple of days ago: https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/ceos-being-...

it makes financial sense at current subscription prices, but this might not hold true when they have to raise prices eventually

I am hopeful but I am not confident China has the capability to do it.

exactly, maybe the grading wasn't rigorous enough if 7th graders managed to get into 8th grade without being able to read

why would a 5-year old need a tutor?

are you advocating to allow 5-year olds access to the internet?

yes, an using it as an educational tool for 5-year olds is an unproven use we don't need to implement.

there's a big universe of solutions between getting nothing versus getting an AI 'educational' software that could do more harm than good.

the question is, why AI? there are good educational software and games in place that can are fun, engaging and provide meaningful stimulus for children at the age of five.

can you enlighten me, what exactly do you learn from asking a llm to do a rewrite?

A human rewrite without maintenance is just a hobby project. An AI rewrite is just wasting tokens for god knows what?

a code written to pass a test can surface unintended new bugs.

just use your agents to do the migration, that's what it's good at.

the opposite can also be true, feature bloat can destroy products by making it unclear for users what they should expect.

very much seems like a product built by an someone with no product research. The UX makes no sense for e-commerce.

coding harnesses improvements mattered more than llm improvements this past year. You could solve problems on claude sonnet on claude code that you couldn't solve a year prior.

the government also actively promotes AI usage in work environments