We dropped Claude. It's pretty clear this is a race to the bottom, and we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software We'll be keeping an eye on open models (of which we already make good use of). I think that's the way forward. Actually it would be great if everybody would put more focus on open models, perhaps we can come up with something like the "linux/postgres/git…
Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
321–330 of 620 posts
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#322We dropped Claude. It's pretty clear this is a race to the bottom, and we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software We'll be keeping an eye on open models (of which we already make good use of). I think that's the way forward. Actually it would be great if everybody would put more focus on open models, perhaps we can come up with something like the "linux/postgres/git…
My understanding is that the major part of the cost of a given model is the training - so open models depend on the training that was done for frontier models? I'm finding hard to imagine (e.g.) RLHF being fundable through a free software type arrangement.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#323We dropped Claude. It's pretty clear this is a race to the bottom, and we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software We'll be keeping an eye on open models (of which we already make good use of). I think that's the way forward. Actually it would be great if everybody would put more focus on open models, perhaps we can come up with something like the "linux/postgres/git…
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#324We dropped Claude. It's pretty clear this is a race to the bottom, and we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software We'll be keeping an eye on open models (of which we already make good use of). I think that's the way forward. Actually it would be great if everybody would put more focus on open models, perhaps we can come up with something like the "linux/postgres/git…
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs Could you do it again without the help of an LLM? If no, then can you really claim to have learned anything?
So, you havent really learned anything from any teacher if you could not do it again without them?
If your child says they've learned their multiplication tables but they can't actually multiply any numbers you give them do they actually know how to do multiplication? I would say no.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#326We dropped Claude. It's pretty clear this is a race to the bottom, and we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software We'll be keeping an eye on open models (of which we already make good use of). I think that's the way forward. Actually it would be great if everybody would put more focus on open models, perhaps we can come up with something like the "linux/postgres/git…
I think companies that are shelling out the money for these enterprise accounts could honestly just buy some H100 GPUs and host the models themselves on premises. Github CoPilot enterprise charges $40 per user per month (this can vary depending on your plan of course), but at this price for 1000 users that comes out to $480,000 a year. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's roughly what you're going to be spending to get a full fledged hosting setup for LLMs.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure you would know if it didn't work? I use Claude extensively myself, so I'm not saying this from a "hater" angle, but I had 2 people last week who believe themselves to be in your shoes send me pull requests which made absolutely no sense in the context of the codebase.
That’s always been the case, AI or not.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lame attitude. There are local models that are last year's SOTA, but that's not good enough because this year's SOTA is even better yet still... I've said it before and I'll say it again, local models are "there" in terms of true productive usage for complex coding tasks. Like, for real, there. The issue right now is that buying the compute to run the top end local models is absurdly unaffordable. Both in ge…
$10k is a lot of tokens.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#329Makes me think the model could actually not even be smarter necessarily, just more token dependent.
Asking a seller to sell less. That's an incentive difficult to reconcile with the user's benefit. To keep this business running they do need to invest to make the best model, period. It happens to be exactly what Anthropic's strategy is. That and great tooling.
And they're selling less and less (suddenly 5 hour window lasts 1 hour on the similar tasks it lasted 5 hours a week ago), so IMO they're scamming.
I hope many people are making notes and will raise heat soon.