301–310 of 311 posts
The core problem of AI remains unresolved, with no conceivable path to solvency. The issue is that AI isn't very good. It's OK, sometimes under very narrow criteria. But providing AI in reality very costly. Vague promises of it magically becoming better remain, very optimistic at best and still provide no route to solvency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The chart doesn't cover the 4.6 release which was in the end of December/early January time frame. So, it's hard to tell from existing data.
That isn't true. The whole point it to quickly pick up statistically significant variations quickly, and with the volume of tests they are doing there is plenty of data. If you turn on the 95% CI bands you can see there is plenty of statistical significance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Claude Code has been bleh or meh at best in my experience." "Why" "HAVE YOU SEEN THEIR CONTEXT MENU"
Are you being dumb on purpose and ignoring the rest of the shit I said or just fanboying for Anthropic? Claude's AI. itself. is. trash. Their UI/UX makes it worse. The constant fanboying/paid PR around it makes it the worst.
Especially since you’re factually wrong and you’re bad at arguing when your temper gets the best of you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're all slop when the complexity is higher than a mid-tech intermediate engineer though. This right here. Value prop quickly goes out the window when you're building anything novel or hard. I feel that I'm still spending the same amount of time working on stuff, except that now I'm also spending money on models.
10x more code output is 10x more review. We've gone from doing the first 90% and then the second 90% to the first 90% and the second 990%, its exausting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
cheap electric due to their massive push on non renewables. There has been no change in the price of electricity during the renewable shift.
Normslly you'd expext that more (and cheaper) supply would drive down prices. Classic market logic. How do do you explain that this market logic ceases to exist for renewables only? A whopping ~2TW or ~35% of generated power in China is renewable and since renewable energy is roughly 1.5 to 4 times cheaper than e.g. coal per kW/h produced that ought to have some impact. If it has not I'd be curious in your explainati…
When we compare this to the power boom in the 2000s they were able to build enough energy generation to meet demand and were able to drive the price down from 30c rural and 17c city to 8cents for both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you being dumb on purpose and ignoring the rest of the shit I said or just fanboying for Anthropic? Claude's AI. itself. is. trash. Their UI/UX makes it worse. The constant fanboying/paid PR around it makes it the worst.
I’m just pointing out that your personal preferences are not proofing others wrong. Especially since you’re factually wrong and you’re bad at arguing when your temper gets the best of you.
Just right NOW it generated GDScript code with SPACES instead of TABS for indentation despite me explicitly asking for tabs and everything else in the project using tabs.
Your use case is either extremely simple, involving extremely common scenarios, or you're too lazy to verify Claude's output.
Either way, it's not worth the hassle to convince someone using a bad product that it's bad; nothing's gonna improve, and you're the one being harmed by stubbornly gaslighting yourself and others that it's good. The rest of us will escape by never subscribing again.
I've already wasted too much time on this thread. I keep saying I am using BOTH Claude AND Codex SIDE BY SIDE but that's somehow getting filtered out by your fanboy glasses. I could post screenshots of the outputs of both agents for the SAME prompts but you would still not understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is my belief that rent price scales with the leftover income people have after they've paid for other necessities. Ie if you're from a poorer country/area then things like milk and gasoline will cost a similar amount (maybe 2x difference), but rent will cost a lot less. As people in a country get richer they start paying a larger and larger share of their income as rent of various forms. Even the US has places wit…
It’s true that average rent prices are regional and poorer areas have lower rents, but that doesn’t tend to make much difference in urban areas and large cities where the majority of people live now. Why do you feel that rent scales with disposable income? Economists generally say the opposite based on housing being a core necesessity; that people pay rent in proportion to their income, and only what’s left over the…
Because I'm from a country where 30 years ago average income was $220/month. Today it's $2475/month.
A large portion of people live in the same houses and apartments now as people did back then. The housing hasn't changed, but today renting a 70 sqm apartment costs you $800/month - the same apartment that people in 1996 lived in with their $220 monthly wage.
The reason why I think that housing is "lower priority" when setting a price is because the sale/rent price for housing is more divorced from the "manufacturing cost" compared to other goods. This happens for a number of reasons:
1. Housing scales with money. Most people live well beyond the "minimum required" for housing. You could survive living in a tiny room with a shared bathroom, but most of us want more than that. Compare this to food - rich and poor people will drink a similar amount of milk. You can't really spend 100x on milk and actually get appreciable benefits from doing so. You can with housing. (Same goes for most other goods. A $3 million car is not 100x better than a $30k car, it's not even 10x better.)
2. Housing is non-fungible. You can't have two houses in the same location. Food, furniture, and electronics are fungible.
3. Housing doesn't depreciate with use compared to other goods. You drink milk and it's gone. You drive your car and it degrades. Your house degrades simply by existing - your use of it will degrade it a little, but living in it also means you do maintenance, like cleaning, that will help keep its value.
4. Because of the above, housing is an asset that people invest in. This is a bit circular, but it also means a lot of people don't want to see housing become cheaper.
>And rent prices have been increasing faster than other necessities, and faster than income, so that might be a confounding factor in your argument.
Because the cost to produce other necessities hasn't increased as quickly as incomes have increased. We have better technology and better economies-of-scale that has made the cost of other goods cheaper. Now people have more money left over to pay for rent, so they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s true that average rent prices are regional and poorer areas have lower rents, but that doesn’t tend to make much difference in urban areas and large cities where the majority of people live now. Why do you feel that rent scales with disposable income? Economists generally say the opposite based on housing being a core necesessity; that people pay rent in proportion to their income, and only what’s left over the…
> Why do you feel that rent scales with disposable income? Because I'm from a country where 30 years ago average income was $220/month. Today it's $2475/month. A large portion of people live in the same houses and apartments now as people did back then. The housing hasn't changed, but today renting a 70 sqm apartment costs you $800/month - the same apartment that people in 1996 lived in with their $220 monthly wage.…
I used the wrong word, btw. The word I meant to use was ‘discretionary’ income. I think that’s what you’re suggesting, that rent is discretionary? ‘Disposable’ income is what’s left after taxes, but ‘discretionary’ income is defined as being what’s left after paying for things like rent, transportation, food, and utilities (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/discretionaryincome.asp)
It’s true the amount one spends on rent is a bit elastic, and that is also true for most consumer goods. The problem with your argument is that rent is not optional, like most consumer goods are. There are very few things that one cannot go without paying for at all, and rent is one of those.
If I understand correctly, what you’re suggesting is the reverse of how most people including economists think of rent. This discussion does depend heavily on what “other goods” you’re actually talking about. Can you provide more concrete examples, and show that they really are getting less expensive over time? Is your hypothesis supported by Eurostat’s HICP or the World Bank’s data on inflation and consumer prices?
> V3 phases were designed and tuned for LiveCodeBench.
only compared on the above benchmark, while this has been identified and being improved for the next version.
curious to see how it compares across the board against the base model (Qwen3-14B-Q4_K_M)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think it's only for coding you don't have much of an imagination :)
These are the types of individuals that become so left in the dust that they don't realize what's going on anymore, and it's obvious this person is already there. Claude hasn't been a "subscription for coding" product for quite some time now. That's how it started out and while that's certainly what Claude is known for, Anthropic has been pushing for Claude to also be a general productivity tool -- Claude Code, then…
They cane take that away from you at any time for any reason, make it too expensive, etc.
A working PC with a Linux distro has been enough and should be enough. Everything else is a time bomb.