Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

Post by jennyholzer » Tue, Jul 29, 2025, 3:43 PM UTC

atonse wrote: post #285

jennyholzer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuing to develop my craft in the 4th straight year of numbskulls claiming that Chat GPT is the end of history has made me extraordinarily confident in my ability to secure lucrative developer work for the rest of my life.

It is not productive to call people numbskulls and make straw-man arguments just because you don't agree with their statements, or may not have observed the same benefits that they have. There is absolutely something real here, whether you choose to believe it or not. I'd recommend taking a good faith and open minded look at the last few months of developments. See where it can benefit you (and where it still falls w…

Post by epistasis » Tue, Jul 29, 2025, 3:57 PM UTC

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #225

epistasis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had been loyal, but am not any longer, so the ploy definitely did not work with me. I guess I'll move on to Gemini now, until I get sick of it. To the degree there is a moat, I do not think it will be effective at keeping people in. I had already been somewhat disillusioned with the AI hype, but now I am also disillusioned with the company who I thought was the best actor in the space. I am happy that there is unli…

Loyalty is for henchmen.

Post by OldfieldFund » Tue, Jul 29, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #287

thimabi wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things would be much easier if, instead of “unlimited”, companies simply offered great usage limits. Yes, hoarders would still exist, but their impact would be negligible. Even better: provide a counter displaying both remaining usage available and the quota reset time. But companies probably earn so much money from the vast majority of users that having good and clear limits would only empower them to actually benef…

I disagree. People will always hoard a constrained resource. Things like phone service and AI tools find their value when people use them freely. The AI models have a bunch of different consumption models aimed at different types of use. I work at a huge company, and we’re experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for users based on different compliance and business needs. The people using all you can eat produ…

Post by NoGravitas » Tue, Jul 29, 2025, 4:06 PM UTC

theshrike79 wrote: post #153

bubblyworld wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, I think making confident claims in either direction is total copium at this point. It's abundantly obvious that LLM-based tools are useful, it's just a question of what we'll settle on using them for and to what degree. Nobody knows how this will play out yet. Reality does not care about your feelings, unfortunately.

Just completely ignoring LLMs is like not wanting to use autocomplete or language servers, preferring to hand-craft everything. But on the other hand there is the other end who think AGI coming in a few months and LLMs are omniscient knowledge machines. There is a sweet spot in the middle.

Post by baq » Tue, Jul 29, 2025, 4:31 PM UTC

jennyholzer wrote: post #99

TrackerFF wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is great to take pride in ones craft, but in the end it comes down to this: We create software for users. If the user can't feel any difference in quality between human made software, or AI made software, then it does not mater. It is that easy. If AI makes better software, at lower prices, human developers will become obsolete. It is the natural way of life. Once we had telephone operators, now we don't.…

I make better software because I don't think like this.