Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 742 posts

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#171

Post by szundi »

cma wrote: post #42
thenobsta wrote: post #8

I wonder what the rationale for this was internally. More OpenAI issues? competitiveness with Cursor? It seems good for the user to increase competition across LLM providers. Also ambiguous title. I thought GitHub canceled deals they had in the work. The article is clearly about making a deal, but it's unclear from the article's title.

Could be a fight against Llama, which excludes MS and Google in its open license (though I think has done separate pay deals with one or both of them). Meta are notably absent from this announcement.

Try to fight the free good-enough haha. At least that’s the plan of Meta, who does not benefit as much selling this than using this

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#172

Post by metalliqaz »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #133
ipaddr wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude is more restricted and can't generate images.

I asked Claude a physics question about bullet trajectory and it refused to answer. Restricted too far imo.

couldn't you s/bullet/ball/ ? or s/bullet/arrow/ ?

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#173

Post by benreesman »

pseudosavant wrote: post #80
campbel wrote: post #3

This is pretty exciting. I'm a copilot user at work, but also have access to Claude. I'm more inclined to use Claude for difficult coding problems or to review my work as I've just grown more confident in its abilities over the last several months.

I use both Claude and ChatGPT/GPT-4o a lot. Claude, the model, definitely is 'better' than GPT-4o. But OpenAI provides a much more capable app in ChatGPT and an easier development platform. I would absolutely choose to use Claude as my model with ChatGPT if that happened (yes, I know it won't). ChatGPT as an app is just so far ahead: code interpreter, web search/fetch, fluid voice interaction, Custom GPTs, image gene…

It’s all a dice game with these things, you have to watch them closely or they start running you (with bad outcomes). Disclaimers aside:

Sonnet is better in the small, by a lot. It’s sharply up from idk, three months ago or something when it was still an attractive nuisance. It still tops out at “Best SO Answer”, but it hits that like 90%+. If it involves more than copy paste, sorry folks, it’s still just really fucking good copy paste.

But for sheer “doesn’t stutter every interaction at the worst moment”? You’ve got to hand it to the ops people: 4o can give you second best in industrial quantity on demand. I’m finding that if AI is good enough, then OpenAI is good enough.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#174

Post by mike_hearn »

tanelpoder wrote: post #170
pseudosavant wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use both Claude and ChatGPT/GPT-4o a lot. Claude, the model, definitely is 'better' than GPT-4o. But OpenAI provides a much more capable app in ChatGPT and an easier development platform. I would absolutely choose to use Claude as my model with ChatGPT if that happened (yes, I know it won't). ChatGPT as an app is just so far ahead: code interpreter, web search/fetch, fluid voice interaction, Custom GPTs, image gene…

Are there any good 3rd-party native frontend apps for Claude (on MacOS)? I mean something like ChatGPTs app, not an editor. I guess one option would be to just run Claude iPad app on MacOS.

You can use https://recurse.chat/ if you have an Apple silicon Mac.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#175

Post by jacobgkau »

echoangle wrote: post #77
kleton wrote: post #72

A case where "cut" is its own antonym, and its unclear which sense is meant from the headline alone.

I just had the same problem and thought there was a deal that was ended now.

Yeah, I was expecting outrage when I first clicked into the thread to glance at the comments, and then I was like "wait, why are people saying it's exciting?"

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#176

Post by ipsum2 »

ffujdefvjg wrote: post #168
a_wild_dandan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The speed with which AI models are improving blows my mind. Humans quickly normalize technological progress, but it's staggering to reflect on our progress over just these two years .

Lots of progress, but I feel like we've been seeing diminishing returns. I can't help but feel like recent improvements are just refinements and not real advances. The interest in AI may drive investment and research in better models that are game-changers, but we aren't there yet.

I don't know about you, but o1-preview/o1-mini has been able to solve many moderately challenging programming tasks that would've taken me 30 mins to an hour. No other models earlier could've done that.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#177

Post by darepublic »

state_less wrote: post #114
gonab wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely I feel that the experience of searching has been degraded by a lot since 2016/17. My these is that, at this time, online spam increased by an order of magnitude

Old style Google search is dead, folks just haven’t closed the casket yet. My index queries are down ~90%. In the future, we’ll look back at LLMs as a major turning point in how people retrieve and consume information.

I still prefer it over using llm. And I would be doubtful that llm search has major benefits over Google search imo

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#178

Post by geodel »

imiric wrote: post #125
dartos wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Claude consistently impresses me. A commenter on another thread mentioned it but it’s very similar to how search felt in the early 2000s. I ask it a question and get my answer. Sometimes it’s a little (or a lot) wrong or outdated, but at least I get something to tinker with.

I recently tried to ask these tools for help with using a popular library, and both GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet gave highly misleading and unusable suggestions. They consistently hallucinated APIs that didn't exist, and would repeat the same wrong answers, ignoring my previous instructions. I spent upwards of 30 minutes repeating "now I get this error" to try to coax them in the right direction, but always ending up…

Well it is volume business. <1% of advanced skill developers will find AI helper useless but for 99% of IT CRUD peddlers these tools are quite sufficient. All in all if employers cut down 15-20% of net development costs by reducing head counts, it will be very worthwhile for companies.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#179

Post by mtkd »

campbel wrote: post #3

This is pretty exciting. I'm a copilot user at work, but also have access to Claude. I'm more inclined to use Claude for difficult coding problems or to review my work as I've just grown more confident in its abilities over the last several months.

One service is not really enough -- you need a few to triangulate more often than not, especially when it comes to code using latest versions of public APIs

Phind is useful as you can switch between them -- but only get a handful of o1 and Opus a day which I burn through quick at moment on deeper things -- Phind-405b and 3.5 Sonnet are decent for general use

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#180

Post by mensetmanusman »

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #155
unshavedyak wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how long people will still protest in these threads that "It doesn't know anything! It's just an autocomplete parrot!" Because.. yea, it is. However.. it keeps expanding, it keeps getting more useful. Yea people and especially companies are using it for things which it has no business being involved in.. and despite that it keeps growing, it keeps progressing. I do find the "stochastic parrot" comments slowl…

The "statistical parrot" parrots have been demonstrably wrong for years (see e.g. LeCun et al[1]). It's just harder to ignore reality with hundreds of millions of people now using incredible new AI tools. We're approaching "don't believe your lying eyes" territory. Deniers will continue pretending that LLMs are just an NFT-level fad or bubble or whatever. The AI revolution will continue to pass them by. More's the pi…

A trillion dimensional stochastic parrot is still a stochastic parrot.

If these systems showed understanding we would notice.

No one is denying that this form of intelligence is useful.

Post reply on HN