51–60 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Code review ostensibly takes place inside a container runtime just like tests or other actions would. It makes sense to me.
but consumes vastly more resources than most app's build process. Done that way it obfuscates cost of the code review and I think that's on purpose
Good thing GitHub has plenty of built-up goodwill to spend down. If they didn’t this cascade of (probably necessary but nevertheless negative for customers) changes might be the tipping point to push a lot of companies to seek other options.
> Good thing GitHub has plenty of built-up goodwill to spend down Do they, though? I don't know a single person who uses GitHub who actually likes it. It's far more often something like "it's fine, but I miss (GitLab|Gerrit)" or "I stopped using it for personal stuff and moved to (Codeberg|GitLab)." The brand recognition among non-technical folks is really the strongest selling point in my eyes. And that's irrelevant…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is that they're moving to a spot where they can pitch an LLM "doing something" as an action, and copilot is their first move. I don't see it as crazy to think of a "copilot code review" in a similar way to other build actions. But also - enterprise accounts already have budget assigned to github actions, and this allows them to start billing right away without having to actually get (or allow) businesses to…
> enterprise accounts already have budget assigned to github actions, and this allows them to start billing right away without having to actually get (or allow) businesses to evaluate the return of having copilot do code reviews Hang on, I read this as copilot reviews with bill both actions minutes and AI credits. Did I miss something?
As financial markets get tighter AI companies will stop subsidizing their services and charge enough money to actually make a profit. It is time to setup local models. It is cheaper, and you already have a computer. Why keep it idle and pay someone else for their CPU?
I assume because local models are nowhere near as good. Hoping I’m wrong!
E.g. a well-designed deployment (infrastructure-as-code) repository doesn’t need a frontier model to be understood well-enough to create a new job / service using sibling jobs / services as templates.
And this already saves me dozens of minutes per week, although it’s not a 2x multiplier in my efficiency.
Good thing GitHub has plenty of built-up goodwill to spend down. If they didn’t this cascade of (probably necessary but nevertheless negative for customers) changes might be the tipping point to push a lot of companies to seek other options.
> Good thing GitHub has plenty of built-up goodwill to spend down Do they, though? I don't know a single person who uses GitHub who actually likes it. It's far more often something like "it's fine, but I miss (GitLab|Gerrit)" or "I stopped using it for personal stuff and moved to (Codeberg|GitLab)." The brand recognition among non-technical folks is really the strongest selling point in my eyes. And that's irrelevant…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the naysayers, I would point out that actions has not only one but TWO 9s of uptime. [1] [1] https://www.githubstatus.com/
Github has recently changed the way their status page tracks uptime in the name of "transparency"[0]. "Partial Outages" are now only worth 30% of their duration, and "Degraded Performance" is worth none, so their uptime values are now wildly inflated. [0] https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/bringing-more...
As financial markets get tighter AI companies will stop subsidizing their services and charge enough money to actually make a profit. It is time to setup local models. It is cheaper, and you already have a computer. Why keep it idle and pay someone else for their CPU?
They never really get tight very long: the various states are way too busy flooding the world with endless money printing to kick the can of the public debt always further.
Covid financial crash? We went to new highs. 2022 tech flash crash (Meta and Netflix did -75% for example): we then went to new highs.
The only way for governments who ever spend way more than they bring in taxpayer dollars is to de-valuate the currency.
So "financial markets getting tighter": probably won't last.
As financial markets get tighter AI companies will stop subsidizing their services and charge enough money to actually make a profit. It is time to setup local models. It is cheaper, and you already have a computer. Why keep it idle and pay someone else for their CPU?
Because it doesn't even come close to frontier models in intelligence/speed/price. I can run my 3090 nonstop and rack up an electricity bill that costs more than a subscription and get worse results that are slower. They are ok for simple/non complex things, but that's not really what I need AI for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out. Usually a tech rugpull like this lasts a number of years. And this sort of has, but the agentic stuff has really only caught on like wildfire in the last, I dunno, six months or so. The rugpull would be way more effective if there could be several years of getting developers addicted to this development paradigm, but alas, the VC money burned was too great to subsi…
Its also a weird way to cede control of the market to the foreign model vendors, because I'm reasonably sure that DeepSeek et al aren't subsidising tokens to the same extent that the big 3's subscription models have been.
So you'll probably never see government customers allow that and neither will a lot of commercial customers.
As financial markets get tighter AI companies will stop subsidizing their services and charge enough money to actually make a profit. It is time to setup local models. It is cheaper, and you already have a computer. Why keep it idle and pay someone else for their CPU?