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

181–190 of 742 posts

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#181

Post by pseudosavant »

Rhapso wrote: post #65
pseudosavant wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing that even when they are giving users maximal choice, even including their arch-nemesis Google, they are evil? Would Microsoft be better if you could only use Microsoft models?

They have established a precedent of embracing open standards and markets only long enough to kill them.

I'd love to see a list of the open standards they've embraced and killed. Your argument is on a weak foundation if it is based on Internet Explorer in the pre IE8 days (15+ years ago), or anything older than that.

Frankly, Microsoft hasn't had enough influence to kill any open standard since the height of their dominance in the early 2000s. They aren't that important. I mean, market forces made them adopt Chromium even.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#182

Post by TeMPOraL »

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.

You're proving GP's point about normalization of progress. It's been two years. We're still during the first iteration of applications of this new tech, advancements didn't have time yet to start compounding. This is barely getting started.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#183

Post by jmcmaster »

block_dagger wrote: post #141
ronnier wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "Claude" is also a bad name. If I knew nothing else, am I picking OpenAI or Claude based on the name? I'm going with OpenAI

Claude is a product name, OpenAI is a company name. You really think Claude is better than ChatGPT?

Asking Americans to read a French name that is a homonym for “clod” may not be the best mass market decision.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#184

Post by lofaszvanitt »

Thank you people for contributing to this free software ecosystem. Oh, you can't monetize your work? Your problem, not ours! Deals are made, but you, who provide your free code, we have zero monetization options for you on our github platform. Go pay for copilot which was trained on your data.

I mean, this is the worst farce ever concocted. And people are oblivious what's happening...

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#185

Post by wavemode »

unshavedyak wrote: post #132
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 .

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…

You're conflating three different things.

There's the question, "is an LLM just autocomplete"? The answer to that question is obviously no, but the question is also a strawman - people who actually use LLM's regularly do recognize that there is more to their capabilities than randomized pattern matching.

Separately, there's the question of "will LLM's become AGI and/or become super intelligent." Most people recognize that LLM's are not currently super intelligent, and that there currently isn't a clear path toward making them so. Still, many people seem to feel that we're on the verge of progress here, and feel very strongly that anyone who disagrees is an AI "doomer".

Then there's the question of "are we in an AI bubble"? This is more a matter of debate. Some would argue that if LLM reasoning capabilities plateau, people will stop investing in the technology. I actually don't agree with that view - I think there is a lot of economic value still yet to be realized in AI advancements - I don't think we're on the verge of some sort of AI winter, even if LLM's never become super intelligent.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#186

Post by ffujdefvjg »

ipsum2 wrote: post #176
ffujdefvjg wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's an improvement but...I've asked it to do some really simple tasks and it'll occasionally do them in the most roundabout way you could imagine. Like, let's source a bash file that creates and reads a state file to do something for which the functionality was already built-in. Say I'm a little skeptical of this solution and plug it into a new o1-preview prompt to double check the solution, and it starts by critiquing the bash script and error handling instead of seeing that the functionality is baked in and it's plainly documented. Other errors have been more subtle.

When it works, it's pretty good, and sometimes great. But when failure modes look like the above I'm very wary of accepting its output.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#187

Post by ben_w »

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…

FWIW, I was able to get a decent way into making my own client for ChatGPT by asking the free 3.5 version to do JS for me* before it was made redundant by the real app, so this shouldn't be too hard if you want a specific experience/workflow?

* I'm iOS by experience; my main professional JS experience was something like a year before jQuery came out, so I kinda need an LLM to catch me up for anything HTML

Also, I wanted HTML rather than native for this.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#188

Post by pseudosavant »

pseudosavant wrote: post #57
didip wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Amazing that even when they are giving users maximal choice, even including their arch-nemesis Google, they are evil? Would Microsoft be better if you could only use Microsoft models?

Funny enough, this is a situation where you can't even use any Microsoft's own models. Is that worse or better? lol

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#189

Post by ahoka »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #68
dfried wrote: post #37

Anyone doing strategic business with Microsoft would do well to remember what they did to Nokia.

You mean waste a few billion on buying a company that couldn't compete with the market anymore because the iphone made "even an idiot should be able to use this thing, and it should be able to do pretty much everything" a baseline expectation with an OS/software experience to match? Nokia failed Nokia, and then Microsoft gave it a shot. And they also couldn't make it work. (sure, that glosses over the whole Elop saga…

I can see why people would think that, but Microsoft did not buy Nokia.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#190

Post by hbn »

Tiberium wrote: post #76
otteromkram wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I removed it from windows and I'm still very productive. Probably moreso, since I don't have to make constant corrections. To each their own.

GitHub Copilot and Microsoft Copilot are different products

Is Microsoft Copilot even a single product? It seems to me they just shove AI in random places throughout their products and call it Copilot. Which would make Github Copilot essentially another one of these places the branding shows up (even if it started there)
Post reply on HN