211–220 of 489 posts
The title is somewhat bait. It reads like MSFT is using less AI, while in fact it's just a force swap to Copilot. Arguably, Copilot is GPT 5? Not sure what the CLI offers behind the covers.
I disagree. As someone who just got a new Windows laptop with Copilot baked(forced) in I've tested Copilot a lot. It. is. so. bad. It feels like it's at least 1-2 years behind the current top models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same phenomenon as when you learn a new vocabulary word you see it everywhere. People heard "Claude is nerfed" and now they see it everywhere, they notice failures a lot more than they would have otherwise. Doesn't matter that Claude is not, in fact, nerfed. Perception is powerful and most humans are not rational.
Oh Opus is nerfed sure, but not that hard. Early this year opus 4.6 can understand your prompt and your intention easily, it got worse around mid April. Opus 4.7 even worse than that. However that's just it, you just need to improve and make clearer of your prompt and it will perform just as good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the enterprise level though, its going to be hard to want to use a service in which costs are not predictable, and keeping those costs under control requires employee training.
You can put a limit on token spend and provide training (and even pre-configured workflows) on how to limit token spend. Like the other commenter said: cloud spend can also spin out of control if you don't pay attention, yet we've found ways to keep it under control (training, guardrails, limits, transparancy).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...use a service in which costs are not predictable, and keeping those costs under control requires employee training. Isn't this a (mildly exaggerated) description of AWS, which is a very successful service?
Mmm… but for AWS its pay for external use right? So your costs scale with the number of users you have. Thats an op ex that you can explain. For tokens for developers its maybe closer, cost/outcome wise, to hiring an external consulting company to write your code; money paid scales with work done, no promise of delivery, arbitrary unpredictable external price changes. Its not quite the same; though, similarly lucrati…
Not if you're using it for running builds, running research jobs, model training, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I losing my mind, aren't there multiple headlines each day about companies penalizing employees for not using AI enough?
That was roughly 3 weeks ago, with the reprising of Claude 4.7 and GPT 5.5, things have become more spicy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if you are referring to the old or new plan? Github Copilot offered probably the best value and was IMO underappreciated for a long time; I've been an annual subscriber since day 1. The changes announced a few days ago completely revoke that value proposition, I doubt I'll continue with it.
There’s a new plan? Ugh. I signed up about five months ago.
Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47838508
GitHub Copilot is moving to usage-based billing
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47923357
Multipliers for annual subscribers:
https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/copilot-billing...
Thus does kind of beg the question: If developers are being laid off because AI is better/faster/cheaper or makes all their people 10x or whatever fig leaf, what happens if the required tooling ends up being more expensive? From the investor’s point of view is the drag of employee costs better or worse than a ballooning expense item?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For months, Employees had the option to choose claude code or copilot. Now they dont. Underlying model choice still has no restrictions. Opus 4.6 is by far the most popular. there's still big $$$ bills going anthropic's way.
Wouldn't they be forced into API pricing instead of per-seat like that though? That would potentially be a massive cost increase. But I've discovered through talking to colleagues some companies are already doing that. I can't understand why you'd ever do that when you can get VC subsidized pricing for now. At least for all initial in-plan usage. I doubt many developers go past the limit anyway and for those you swit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stay with 4.6 if you can, it is disabled (afaik) on vscode claude code extension. 4.7 IMO is around 10-20% worse at understanding your prompt intention. You need more effort to explain your intention clearer so it doesn't divert.
I switched back to 4.6 thinking, as most did, 4.7 introduced some jankinesss to it. I switched back soon enough to 4.7. I think I might've adapted myself to what and how 4.7 does things. 4.6 felt a step backward.