71–80 of 239 posts
Constraints can lead to innovation. Just two things that I think will get dramatically better now that companies have incentive to focus on them: * harness design * small models (both local and not) I think there is tremendous low hanging fruit in both areas still.
There's other side to it too. Whoever running and selling their own models with inference is invested into the last dime available in the market. Those valuations are already ridiculously high be it Anthropic or OpenAI to the tune of couple of trillion dollars easily if combind. All that investment is seeking return. Correct me if I'm wrong. Developers and software companies are the only serious users because they (m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI has an absurdly high valuation given their cash burn vs RRR. Anthropic's is far more reasonable. It makes no sense to lump these two companies together when talking about valuation. They have completely different financial dynamics
No matter how low and reasonably Anthropic is valued, don't think $200 Max plans are going to recoup the investment + some return on top because size of the software industry is not that huge and profit margins for AI inference aren't very high either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've seen this claimed, but I'm not sure it's been true for my use cases? I'd be surprised if it isn't true for your use cases. If you give GLM-5.1 and Optus 4.6 the same coding task, they will both produce code that passes all the tests. In both cases the code will be crap, as no model I've seen produces good code. GLM-5.1 is actually slightly better at following instructions exactly than Optus 4.6 (but maybe not…
> In both cases the code will be crap, as no model I've seen produces good code. I'm wondering if you have actually used claude code because results are not so catastrophic as you describe them.
if (foo == NULL) {
log_the_error(...);
goto END;
}
END:
free(foo);
But that's the least of it. The models (all of them) are absolutely hopeless at DRY'ing out the code, and when they do turn it into spaghetti because they seem almost oblivious to isolation boundaries, even when they are spelt out to them.
None of this is a problem if you are vibe coding, but you can only do that when you're targeting a pretty low quality level. That's entirely appropriate in some cases of course, but when it isn't you need heavy reviews from skilled programmers. No senior engineer is going to stomach the repeated stretches of almost the "same but not quite" code they churn out.
You don't have to take my word for it. Try asking Google "do llm's produce verbose code".
Constraints can lead to innovation. Just two things that I think will get dramatically better now that companies have incentive to focus on them: * harness design * small models (both local and not) I think there is tremendous low hanging fruit in both areas still.
Harness is a big one, Claude Code still has trouble editing files with tabs. I wonder how many tokens per day are wasted on Claude attempting multiple times to edit a file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ASML only makes a certain number of machines a year that can do extreme ultra-violet lithography. Also - turbine blades limit power, according to Elon. Between them - we cannot chip fabs past a certain rate, and we cannot stand up the datacenter to run these desired chips past a certain rate. Different people believe one or the other is the 'true' current bottleneck. The turbine supply chain scaling looks much more t…
Is global compute bottlenecked by one company?
Constraints can lead to innovation. Just two things that I think will get dramatically better now that companies have incentive to focus on them: * harness design * small models (both local and not) I think there is tremendous low hanging fruit in both areas still.
China already operates like this. Low cost specialized models are the name of the game. Cheaper to train, easy to deploy. The US has a problem of too much money leading to wasteful spending. If we go back to the 80s/90s, remember OS/2 vs Windows. OS/2 had more resources, more money behind it, more developers, and they built a bigger system that took more resources to run. Mac vs Lisa. Mac team had constraints, Lisa t…
The US is bound by energy and China is bound by compute power. The one who solves its limitation first will end this “Scarcity Era”.
US energy is constrained by the utility monopolies/oligopolies which have to extract more rents, specifically by increasing costs. Their profit is a percentage of cost, these perverse incentives + oligopolies will make it increasingly expensive to make anything (including AI) in US.
Years, is like a lifetime for AI at this point...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you go to the command line and type “Claude”, there is an LLM, and everything else is the harness
I'm having an hard time getting my mind to see this. > Users should re-tune their prompts and harnesses accordingly. I read this in the press release and my mind thought it meant test harness. Then there was a blog post about long running harnesses with a section about testing which lead me to a little more confusion. Yes, the word 'harness' is consistently used in the context as a wrapper around the LLM model not as…