411–420 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft's products are also extremely successful they're also total garbage
Claude is by far the most popular and best assistant currently available for a developer.
Discussions are pointless when the parties are talking past each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A year or more ago, I read that both Anthropic and OpenAI were losing money on every single request even for their paid subscribers This gets repeated everywhere but I don't think it's true. The company is unprofitable overall, but I don't see any reason to believe that their per-token inference costs are below the marginal cost of computing those tokens. It is true that the company is unprofitable overall when you…
I can see a case for omitting R&D when talking about profitability, but training makes no sense. Training is what makes the model, omitting it is like omitting the cost of running the production facility of a car manufacturer. If AI companies stop training they will stop producing models, and they will run out of a products to sell.
It is essentially a big game of venture capital chicken at present.
I think two things are getting conflated in this discussion. First: marginal inference cost vs total business profitability. It’s very plausible (and increasingly likely) that OpenAI/Anthropic are profitable on a per-token marginal basis, especially given how cheap equivalent open-weight inference has become. Third-party providers are effectively price-discovering the floor for inference. Second: model lifecycle econ…
But the max 20x usage plans I am more skeptical of. When we're getting used to $200 or $400 costs per developer to do aggressive AI-assisted coding, what happens when those costs go up 20x? what is now $5k/yr to keep a Codex and a Claude super busy and do efficient engineering suddenly becomes $100k/yr... will the costs come down before then? Is the current "vibe-coding renaissance" sustainable in that regime?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It says "subscription users do not have access to Opus 4.6 1M context at launch" so they are probably planning to roll it out to subscription users too.
Man I hope so - the context limit is hit really quickly in many of my use cases - and a compaction event inevitably means another round of corrections and fixes to the current task. Though I'm wary about that being a magic bullet fix - already it can be pretty "selective" in what it actually seems to take into account documentation wise as the existing 200k context fills.
I check context use percentage, and above ~70% I ask it to generate a prompt for continuation in a new chat session to avoid compaction.
It works fine, and saves me from using precious tokens for context compaction.
Maybe you should try it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also explains why Claude Code is a React app outputting to a Terminal. (Seriously.)
It’s really not that crazy. React itself is a frontend-agnostic library. People primarily use it for writing websites but web support is actually a layer on top of base react and can be swapped out for whatever. So they’re really just using react as a way to organize their terminal UI into components. For the same reason it’s handy to organize web ui into components.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
the field is advancing so fast it's hard to do real science as their will be a new SOTA by the time you're ready to publish results. i think this is a combination of that and people having a laugh. Would you mind sharing which benchmarks you think are useful measures for multimodal reasoning?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'll bite. The benchmark is actually pretty good. It shows in an extremely comprehensible way how far LLMs have come. Someone not in the know has a hard time understanding what 65.4% means on "Terminal-Bench 2.0". Comparing some crappy pelicans on bicycles is a lot easier.