_aavaa_

Yes, do look at the Clair Obscur frenzy. It was over placeholder textures slipping through. A newspaper clipping on a post.

This isn't about feeding the ethical vegan meat. It's about the farm workers growing the vegetables needing to be vegan themselves. If customers wish to limit their buying to only vegan food grown by vegans, that's certainly their right to choose, and those companies are free to label their products as such.

Sure it can.

The bubbles are caused by the investing not by the tech. Same tech in another country can have more sane investing.

AFAIK the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on it, and lower decisions haven’t only been made on contentment that’s solely ai generated.

If I can copyright the outputs of a code generator when I feed it my own inputs, then believe there is a similar line for LLM output.

I believe OpenAI went back on the reduction in the $200 plan, and actually double usage for the 20, 100, and 500.

If you’re going to go all the way, make it public domain.

Because the article is from Jan 2025.

> Alphabet reported property-and-equipment purchases of about $51.4B, while analysts expected approximately $55.1B. Microsoft reported capex and finance leases of about $45.2B, while analysts were expecting around $50.7B. These were significant misses.

>

> […]

>

> Caterpillar inventories increased to $22.2 billion at the end of September […] The 22% increase in inventory signals future demand weakness or overproduction, and the reason is lower AI capex, as reported by Alphabet and Microsoft.

Maybe I’m not getting it. But it’s alphabet and Microsoft spending less than someone external said they should spend, not what they themselves said they would spend. How is that a miss?

You’re thinking of: https://github.com/ninjahawk/livenerf

I’ll ask the same question as when it came out: if you don’t trust the provider how are you trust them not to look for and cheat on repeat benchmarks like this.

What is the product here? Everything expect getting a teammate to review is a 3 simple prompts + beads.

Give it another 6 months (if that) and you can drop the cost an order of magnitude.

As sales dropped probably because people ask their AI for answers and searches instead of Google…

It is a factual but actively misleading statement.

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.

> deforesting without a permit

> man made logging forest

This isn't an old growth forest, these are trees planted specifically to be cut down.

Valve is unlikely to raise a lawsuit in China even if someone releases Half Life 2: Electric Boogaloo. They have no hope of winning, and their position in the country is a miracle as it is.

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.

> Valve ought to be funding lawsuits against these bootleggers.

Is cloning the games in this way illegal? Has there been a precedent set?

Deep Blue in full swing.

How long do you think that will last? Because it hasn't even been a year since Opus 4.5 came out and really started this.

What is the point you're trying to make? You can define a task yourself and run two models and see which one costs more, takes longer, and produces better code.

> neither provider seems to make it easy to get real billing information per project/conversation

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 think you’ll find abstract and modern art evokes quite a lot of emotion. Quiet a lot of indignation from people who “know what real art is”.

> It was actually a 150% price increase for people who want or need what the old plan used to provide.

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.

First of all, only the $200 plan got a cut.

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.

How do you know? Have you done the A/B test yourself?

> 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.

Why does it have to be JS? With all this AI, why can't we ship native apps.

Cost per task, time per task, quality (good luck measuring objectively between models) are the metric that matter. I don't care how much a token costs, I'm not buying tokens, I'm buying solutions.

We can disagree on exact term, but for me the following is good enough: text you didn’t write, did not review, or that you cannot adequately review given your grasp on the language or the concepts.

But that’s irrelevant. Post in your own language and let others translate.

Some repos also ban ai translatations, and explicitly require non-english speakers to write in their native language, then the reader can 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,

My point wasn’t whether it’s discriminatory or not. I’m saying that their stance appears to be “no-AI, for any reason”.

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?

> The policy also tells people who do not speak English to find another community, arguing that moderators cannot reliably distinguish AI-written English from AI-translated text.

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.

I don't think it's that simple. It's similar to why Adobe and Microsoft get their tools into schools and turn a blind eye to certain kinds of piracy; mindshare.

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.