only that is not so. disk prices maybe, the memory will not be available to consumers because it's a tech that makes sense only for datacenters full of GPUs and massive power/cooling. by now all fabs have converted to it, there might be a lot of HBM capacity freed but no consumer devices that can use it. retooling all fabs to produce consumer level memory will take a lot of time if they even do it at all instead of just pushing for consumers to rent datacenter capacity directly.
all three major remaining players in the mem sector have already tried in the past to collude for memory price fixing.
this is the first time I'm rooting for chinese chip tech to reach more or less parity.
oh no, the company that illegally used every possible media they could get their hands on is crying that some other company is doing something potentially shady but not illegal? And using that excuse to put in place hidden surveillance systems on their customers?
or maybe it is a bad thing, because right now the model is "throw it against the wall and see what sticks or how many billions we need to make it stick"?
Dark matter is not another Guess. is no guess at all. its the same as saying the center of the earth is made of Dark Core. and when someone proposed liquid core, there would be papers how a liquid core doesnt explain 100 %, and neither does rock or solid so Dark Core it is because it's sIMpLer to have just one Dark Something than 3 different somethings to explain anything.
The fact that there are tentatives to identify what it might be does not ammegliorate the fact that at it's core (pun intented) Dark matter is something to make equations fit without any other thought behind it or whether there might be several things behind it or god forbid that we juddge the equations themselves. I mean we got relativity because of a minor discord with newtonian Laws. (the orbit of Mercury). just a tiny percentage of obeservable behaviour at that time but it was a different time. a time where you could bring down the existing science of the day for a tiny percentage and now we accept 90% observation disaccordance (dark energy+dark matter) with what the equation require.
It's funny how for MOND we cant accept that it has some unknowns yet but we are more than willing to accept the FULL UNKNOWN Dark Matter. it's easy. put "Dark" in front of something and you don't have to explain it at all, no matter that something else explains at least 60-70% instead of 0.
you can have both. the waterproof was just an excuse to make you either change the phone or go to a specialised center to change the battery, something that is so incovinient/expensive that people just obsolete their phone instead.
the information is not new. how easy it is to get step by step instructions is new.
Try it yourself. Google is good but not instant, step by step good. you need to do your own research that takes time. time that anti-terrorist units use to track you down. now this time factor is very limited you don't need to do research, cross reference materials, sources, etc. LLM does it for you. a research that could take days is done in 1 hour.
not the same thing. to use your tool analogy, the AI companies are saying , here is a fantastic angle grinder, you can do everything with it, even cut your bread.
technically yes but not the best and safest tool to give to the average joe to cut his bread.
it's not really investing though. Amazon will provide 50B worth of compute and Nvidia will provide 30B worth of chips etc. Google doesnt need any of those.
The only one that is really investing is SoftBank who is pushing for a faster IPO so they hope to make a profit on that and again Google does not offer that opportunity
min release age to 7 days about patch releases exposes you to the other side of the coin, you have an open 7 days window on zero-day exploits that might be fixed in a security release
Agree but you are talking about a POC, and he is talking about reliable, working software.
this phase of LLM are perfect for POCs and there you can have 10x speedup, no question.
But going from a POC to a working reliable software is where most of our time is spent anyway even without LLMS.
With LLMs this phase becomes worse.
we speedup 10x the poc time, we slow down almost as much in the next phases, because now you have a poc of 10k lines that you are not familiar with at all, that have to pay way more attention at code review,
that have to bolt on security as an afterthought (a major slowdown now, so much so that there are dedicated companies whose business model has become fixing Security problems caused by LLM POCs).
Next phase, POCs are almost always 99% happy path. Bolt on edge case as another after thought and because you did not write any of those 10k lines how do you even know what edge cases might be neccesary to cover? maybe you guessed it rigth, spend even more time studing the unfamiliar code.
We use LLM extensivly now in our day to day, development has become somewhat more enjoyable but there is, at least as of now, no real increase in final delivry times, we have just redestributed where effort and time goes.
then you are misunderstaing the downvoting. it's not that the fact that they are burning money. it's the fact that this cost today 20k but that is not the real cost if you factor the it is losing money on this price.
So Tomorrow when this "startup" will need to come out of their money burning phase, like every startup has to sooner or later, that cost will increase, because there is no other monetising avenue, at least not for anthropic that "wilL never use ads".
at 20k this "might" be a reasonable cost for "the project", at 200k it might not.
No, What i'm thinking is Having the option to choose Salary Stability or Salary Risk.
In that scenario if the employee is fired after just 2 years (worse case) because the project does not work, he is still financially better (compared to what he was getting at the "stable salary") even if it takes him 2 full years to find another job (something very unlikely if there is a dynamic employment market).
in the current scenario of contract works, the employee is getting all the negative effects of changing a job without any upside.
of course I am not talking about complete US style firing, but something in the middle. The option to fire with adequate notice let's say 3 months and adequate compensation, let's say 3 months of compensation after finishing your time.
This way, the employee has 6 months of job Hunting, (I think that is a sweet spot to make it reasonable for both the company and the employee)
Is someone forcing you to work at a company chasing the latest fad?
You go and choose the type of company you want.
The keyword here being "Choice".
There are plenty of workers that would not mind carring a little more risk in those companies for better pay, and those companies could offer better pay if not made to jump through loops.
Classic Example is the "Consultant" contracts.
Companies are paying through their nose to hire "consultants" because it's the easiest way they can try a new idea that might not work.
Company A pays Company B 1k/day for that "consultant", Company B does not have enough capacity so gets that "Consultant" from Company C for 700/day. Company C does the same and gets the consultant from Company D for 500/Day. Company D actually employs the consultant and pays him 200/Day.
In this whole useless chain build to avoid the "can not fire even if your projects doesn't work" Both Company A and the actual Employee are losing big, Both would be much better having a direct contract for 500/day with the understading that this might not work after all.
Notice that for that Employee, stability is not there even now. yes he continues to be employed by Company D When Company A stops the contract but he is effectivly moved to another Contract with Company X. he is effectivly changing Jobs, new reposnsabilities, new collegues, new rules etc. only in the eyes of the state he is not changing jobs.
If developers are using Claude code with it's quirks, Anthropic controls the backend LLM.
If developers are using OpenCode, it's easy for developers to try different LLMs and maybe substitute it (temporarily or permanently).
In an enterprise market, once they choose a tool they tend to stay with that even if it is not the best, the cost and timeframe of changing is too high.
if developers could swap LLMs freely on their own tool that is big missed opportunity for Anthropic. Not a User friendly move, but the norm in Enterprise.
Right now, most enterprises are experimenting with different LLMs and once they chose they will be locked for a long time.
If they cant can't chose because their coding agent doesn't let them they be locked to that.
LLMs have read EVERYTHING yes. that includes a lot of not optimal solutions, repeating mantras about past best practices that are not relevant anymore, thousands of blog posts about how to draw an owl by drawing two circles and leaving the rest as an exercise to the reader etc.
The value of a good engineer is his current-context judgment. Something that LLMs can not do Well.
Second point, something that is being mentioned occasionally but not discussed seriously enough, is that the Dead Internet Theory is becoming a reality.
The amount of good, professionally written training materials is by now exhausted and LLMs will start to feed on their own slop.
See How little the LLM's core competency increased in the last year even with the big expansion of their parameters.
Babysitting LLM's output will be the big thing in the next two years.
>How is that different from how it worked without LLMs? The only difference is that we can now get a failing product faster and iterate.
The difference is that there is an engineer in the middle who can judge if the important information is provided or not as input.
1. for a LLM "the button must be blue" has the same level of importance as "the formula to calculate X is..."
2. failing faster and iterating is good thing if the parameters of failing are clear which is not always the case with vibecoding, especially when done by people with no prior experience in developing. plenty of POCs build with vibecoding have been presented with no aparent failure in their happy path but with disastrous results in edge cases or with disastrous Security etc.
3. where previously, familairity with the codebase and especially the "history of changes" gave you context about why some workarounds were put into place, these are things that are lost to a LLM. Vibecoding a change to an existing system risks removing those "special workarounds" that keep in mind much more than the current context of the specifications or prompt.
rerouted? it was a completly different destination, much further than he was originally. there is nothing "noone can do" about stupid burecracies like "can't stop at this station because we are not registered". First they had time to register the stop when they changed the itinery, Second if they failed that somehow, and most probably because of "there was no manual how to do it", in a sittuation like these, stupid rules like that should go out of the window and the passengers be let off as soon as possible and not 60km away. Somehow they can be flexible with the people's time but not with their stupid checklists.
Videos produce benefits (arguably much less now with the AI generated spam) that are difficult to reproduce with other less energy hungry ways. compare this with this message that it would have cost nothing to a human to type instead of going through the inference of AI not only wasting energy for something that could have been accomplished much easier but removing also the essence of the activity. No-One was actually thankful for that thankyou message.
all three major remaining players in the mem sector have already tried in the past to collude for memory price fixing.
this is the first time I'm rooting for chinese chip tech to reach more or less parity.