achompas

One thing I’m observing in these comments is a willingness of folks to project their own predictions onto Ed’s statements when validating their plausibility. Eg. “I think he’s wrong about the timing but I do expect AI companies to go to zero.”

You can do that, but then you’re no longer discussing his predictions. You’re discussing your predictions, and your own positioning.

Those differ from Dan’s essay, which engages with the literal text of Ed’s numerous predictions during 2024 and 2025 which are demonstrably invalidated by their measurable outcomes.

I actually think you’ve got it backwards

I think one of Zitron’s problems is that his moral righteousness has blinded him to how embarrassingly incorrect he is about the AI space.

It’s similarly hubristic with the benefit of shielding from his adversarial framing.

But I think anyone who evaluates their claims understands that they’re talking their own books.

Zitron’s problems are more subtle. He benefits financially from his own claims, while also touting his impartiality and capacity for objective thought.

But we’re talking about Gemini, which is one of Dan’s point: the surface area is so large that any prediction is almost laughable. Zitron’s prediction here is laughable in fact because he claims both (1) Pichai is jamming AI everywhere and (2) the 500M number is impossible. Those statements are immediately contradictory to anyone who understands the scale of Google’s products.

A prediction definitionally includes an outcome, and it _can_ include a timeline. (if you’re serious about your forecasting, then you generally include a timeline; forecasting is non-actionable if it does not include a timeline).

You might choose a different timeline for Ed’s outcomes. Okay: those are now your predictions, not his.

Zitron has done us the favor of including timelines with his predictions, so that Dan can invalidate almost all of them.

The onus isn’t on me. It’s on anyone contradicting findings by most benchmarks, because most of them show a clear advantage for Opus and GPT over OSS models.

The problem isn’t the SDK but the API usage.

Users will say this-or-that about choice etc etc. It’s about subsidized tokens. Otherwise th users (and OpenCode) would have stopped pushing the workarounds months ago.

I’m sorry but you’re demonstrably incorrect.

Listen, I want more open weight models in the world. They create entrepreneurial opportunities and support use cases which the foundation labs don’t want to support.

But open weight models are consistently three to six months behind on performance compared to closed models, as confirmed by both benchmarks and personal use. They’re closer on coding and much further away on non-coding tasks.

There are theories as to why these models lag, which I won’t get into. But anyone claiming open-weight models are close to closed-weight models is ignoring significant evidence to the contrary.

This is both true and immaterial to Microsoft’s net profits.

Yep, well said and great, sharp explanation.

I think we can attribute a bunch of consternation here to drift between assumed and actual licensing terms.

The actual licensing terms for Claude Code expressly prohibit use of the product outside of the Claude Code harness. If you want Opus outside of CC, the API is available for your use anytime.

Some percentage of the community seems to assume their Claude Code subscription licenses allow free usage of CC across any product surface - including competing products like OpenCode. While this is a great way to save on API costs, the assumption is incorrect. In fact, it is *so* incorrect that Anthropic has encoded their licensing terms into their Terms of Service, and a result can take legal action against any violating parties.

We can have separate discussions about Anthropic’s use of the Common Crawl in pre-training, or whether foundation labs adhere to robots.txt conventions. But those don’t directly impact Anthropic’s right to bring litigation.

——

Outside of that I think angry users have their own stated preferences v revealed preferences here. They claim they want Opus on their terms, and Anthropic’s actions infringe on their user rights.

Angry folks: Opus is right there! You just need an API key! The reality is you want Opus in your devtools of choice at discounted rates. You could at least be honest about your consternation

Yes, it is true that companies often litigate against customers who violate their Terms of Service. The TOS is put into place to protect the company’s interests from user abuse.

Paying customers of Claude Code don’t receive a free-use license for any desired application. They’re paying to use Claude Code. Anthropic can take steps to litigate usage outside of those terms, even if customers find that fact really annoying.

LMSYS consistently provides a high standard for open, collaborative exploration of LLMs. Cool to see them explore LLM routing - this feels like a fertile area for problemsolving.

My experience this is common for specialty knowledge the founders might not possess. They know enough to know they cannot assess, say, AI/ML or infrastructure, and seek interview support from an advisor.

I took Adam’s point here to be that an Airflow DAG author primarily concerns themselves with the configuration of those objects, since the underlying components (Celery worker, Python execution process or K8s pod; data warehouse; RPC) have been abstracted in the form of Operators.

But at no point did OP claim it was a scam? They even ask if this is normal for American franchises, instead of accusing 7-11 of predatory behavior.

I use a trackball next to my keyboard which barely cracks the $100 barrier right now. The trackball won't change when the keyboard does in a few months.

I regret using the word "person." luv too be nitpicked on HN

The better version of my argument is "the product is not the same because it was not appropriately transferred between operators."

Of course this is all squishy and grey, since I don't believe DataTau filed a trademark claim, but moving forward with an identically-named product is still poor taste.

You're making my point for me - that's a legally approved transfer of assets. This is not.

I don't think this excuses the cloning.

If you wanted to keep the project running, the first step would be to speak with the real site's maintainer to develop a plan.

But it is not the same product, because it is not run by the same person. That matters.

Yikes, I’m sorry. What were your application developers doing to persist this messy data?

Their service is high-touch. Stylists speak with clients constantly, so they record this information.

They also have mobile apps, they run product experiments, they source and sell clothing and manage inventory, they build and iterate on algorithmic approaches to recommend and design clothing (many of which help stylists and never reach the screen of an external client).

You can skim through their Algorithms blog for some more detail. I find them impressive in how they scale the impact of relatively few stylists to about 3M users.

https://www.kleinerperkins.com/files/INTERNET_TRENDS_REPORT_...

I don’t think I questioned CP’s HOF credentials anywhere, except on whether he’s a dirty player. Which he is.