benterix

"Them" are the management of frontier labs, especially OpenAI and Anthropic as they have no other products than their LLMs and they do have a fairly consistent strategy aimed at convincing large investors that (1) something that doesn't exist yet is bound to exist, and that (2) their products are far better than they really are.

This is fairly common SV strategy, used by Tesla and others, and it works extremely well in spite of people pointing out the obvious weak points.

There are different names for this, such as The Last Mile Problem or the Ninety-Ninety Rule, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

It would be great net result for our brains, however too much money has been poured into this business to give up on that. My belief they will push for SWE layoffs trying to position LLM-based agents as a cost efficient alternative to human programmers. Which is extremely stupid and short-sighted but that's the strategy.

> The problem I find is that no one writes C# libraries that actually do anything

Yes, because when you think about it, why should they?

MS has showed many times how unreliable and even user-hostile they can be, so the community at large is very wary of their ecosystem in spite of real advancements.

I assume 17% is roughly the percentage of people that use LLMs globally (the numbers vary between 15 and 20 percent).

It's one of these rare cases where intention is not what is the most important - the net benefit for consumers and companies outside of the USA is indisputable.

> I think we’re already very numb to AI.

Yeah, I got totally numb to AI slop. I looked at it and thought, this is surely so broken that nothing works. Came for the comments and the folks who actually had the time to invest in trying it out confirm that nothing works.

Developers with enterprise credentials sprinkled throughout their environment running anything from the Internet deserve what they get.

But I assumed the intended audience are home users with entry level macbooks/minis with 128 GB RAM where this patch actually helps them.

Really? Like what deep questions?

For me LLMs are a step forward from previous ML approaches (some of them were and still are extremely useful anyway) and for sure are very useful to many people. They are very good at generating sensible output based on input created by millions of people, but very poor at creating anything really novel.

Who would want to maintain ai-generated mess in the long run?

What for, exactly?

Let me offer an alternative: logical reasoning.

1. Increased revenue normally means increased usage. [We don't dispute that, right?]

2. Increased usage normally means increased cost.

3. There is an exception to 2: if Anthropic made a gigantic discovery and was able to reduce the cost while increasing the usage - but since it would be in their best interests, they would announce this information and brag about it for months, but they haven't (what they do is just playing the quantization game all labs do, but this is beside the point).

4. Hence, we have very solid reasons to assume their costs increased.

The biggest disadvantage of Jev is that it's a proprietary product and you need to send them your data. A bespoke solution makes much more sense in many scenarios.

> The only option on the table is to force regulation to impose open source ban

This makes zero sense.

1. Open source models are already out there and they are good. Good luck with banning their use.

2. Any ban is a local ban, the best Trump can do is to coerce its allies (whose number seems to be dwindling week by week). Meanwhile China and co. will progress anyway.

3. What about the common sense and instead of saying "agent did it" we return to the times where the person using a tool was responsible for using it in the first place? And if the vendor of the tool is unable to make it safe to use (well, they well do, but they don't want to do it as the functionality is limited), it should be accompanied by a warning with a clear explanation of who exactly is responsible.

4. There is no guarantee the next generation of models will "mature" to the point of not having these flaws; on the contrary, the evidence so far shows the opposite.

The next logical step would be to have a separate card for each Unix utility.

That could be a factor for sure, but this iOS upgrade basically broke mu iPhone as switching between apps got noticeably slower and sometimes the UI gets stuck for a second or two especially when switching between the camera and other apps. I'm so sorry I gave in and installed it.

It's not a problem at all. It's only for the things I care about and I consider important for a couple of reasons (maintaining and developing mental models etc.).

I have no problem with other people outsourcing their intelligence to me, I've been doing this for years. But I prefer not to outsource my intelligence, at least not for things I care about, for various reasons.

> we'd be going back to writing code by hand

Well, as as SWE who writes code by hand and has no intention to outsource their intelligence to any entity, I felt slightly offended by "back".

> Microsoft to instantly get your full name, address, email, phone number, and any other data associated with your Microsoft account.

Provided you bent the knee and created a Microsoft account.

LOL. A thief accusing someone else of theft.

Also, I love their choice of words. Like "distillation against", "stealing proprietary technology" - it's all aimed at certain people.

> People want to get spoon fed all information they need, especially since AI - no?

It's definitely true to some extent, but you can't generalize "people" to some uniform group, we have various needs.

There is a lot of distrust against Google and Microsoft here, also when they opensource stuff, and Chromium and AOSP are great counterexamples.

> human rights and all that rubbish

While I understand your point, please think a bit how you formulated the sentence above.

I heard this false justification already in 2007, in spite of many customers asking for it.

Incidentaly, smaller competitors solved this issue decades ago, while the big cloud decided it is more convenient never to implement it.

They clearly know it but have to pretend otherwise to keep the money flowing.

> I speak as I think and I type and as I speak, so I do uses em-dashes.

I'm sorry to break it to you but the sentence you just wrote doesn't contain any —s.

Suppose someone wants to play this game, what's the point? Not to mention the fact that Gnome, even though is not a GNU project, literally means GNU Network Object Model Environment.