Partially correct: we don't give away the source, but we also don't use your credentials.
We use the official cloud CLIs (gcloud, hcloud, aws, az, vultr-cli) that are either already signed in or not. If not, we detect using their subcommands to display login status, like gcloud info, etc). If not signed in, we ask if you want to sign in, and if you do then the official cloud CLI does the sign in and handles your creds however each one does. That might sound like splitting hairs, but to me that approach made much more sense that trying to safely handle your creds!
You might be wondering why not give away the source code? I tried this over the last 10 years with a bunch of different products (BrowserBox, DownloadNet), and ones where I didn't (WisprNote, etc). The trend was clear: giving away source led to less revenue, and more "shady" usage (big corps using but ripping it off, etc). Whereas proper "license and source protection locked-doors" led to people behaving with more respect, and more revenue.
There is an option to check the source if you’re serious about that: sign an NDA, jump on a secure data room call and I can take you through the source for audit. Normally I only do this for big customers of other products but, I’m open to it.
(Original title: Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States -- Had to be trimmed to fit within 80chr)
That’s only tangentially related but I have a very hard time using Opus for anything serious. Sonnet is still much more useful to me thanks to the context window size. By the moment Opus actually understands what’s needed, I’m n compactions deep and pretty much hoping for the best.
That’s a reason why I can’t believe the benchmarks and why I also believe open source models (claiming 200 but realistically struggling past 40k) aren’t only a bit but very far behind SOTA in actual software dev.
This is not true for all software, but there are types of systems or environments where it’s abundantly clear that Opus (or anything with a sub 1m window) won’t cut it, unless it has a very efficient agentic system to help.
I’m not talking about dumping an entire code base in the context, I’m talking about clear specs, some code, library guidelines, and a few elements to allow the LLM to be better than a glorified autocomplete that lives in an electron fork.
How so? I use remote machines all the time, why would I need a TUI for that? VSCode and zed support editing on remote machines and the machine drives are also mounted on the local machine? What purpose would any TUI have? What even are the potential benefits?
Right now I can use the exact same software I use on my local machine. Can you give me any reason why I should consider anything else?
Neither their revenue nor their market share in the space looks like just fine. What exactly in trailing the market for years is “just fine”?
AMD is very far behind, and their earnings are so low that even with a nonsensical pe ratio they’re still less than a tenth of nvidia. No, they are not doing anywhere near fine.
Are hobbyists the reason for this? I’m not sure. However, what AMD is doing is clearly failing.
A big chunk of NVidia's current price is a reflection of lacking meaningful competition. So straight comparison isn't quite fair: if AMD started to do better, the gap would shrink from both ends.
In this specific case it was obvious that Luna was based on dubious economics. It didn’t require auditor skills. Barely high school economics. If YouTubers are not blamed for promoting scams without appropriate disclaimers, the crypto industry will grow the wrong way. Making the promoters responsible for this would help legitimate projects.
Honestly, making people pay for an app that only uses a public API you’re not paying for, and no form of fallback is asking for trouble. This is not a responsible way to do business and I hope people reading this thread will understand that.
Since ~15 years, people got the idea that all the WhatsApps, Instagrams or Twitters around them aren't companies, but kind of public infrastructure. They all knew that it's a wrong assumption, but it's sooo convenient, and at some point, people around you force you in that direction, even if you don't like all those walled gardens. And once this wrong philosophy was established, people started escalating it to some smaller shops, I guess. Those are also the guys that complain when some 3rd party Reddit or Youtube hobby clients must disappear. They just have no understanding at all about some basic mechanics of human interaction. The biggest problem: There are entire generations of people nowadays with that misunderstanding.
Customers are generally not willing to pay for trained cs reps that could actually be helpful. As far as startups are concerned VCs would therefore not like you to use their dollars to pay cs reps when an LLM could do the job in their eyes.
I agree with the sentiment of TFA but I think this is a battle that we have no chance of winning at scale. Very similarly to hoping for an ad-free web.
The company I work for has a large, competent and expensive support team. Every single customer state it's their #1 reason they're with us. Yet nobody in the business, investors, or dev teams want to believe it and there's a huge pressure from business to automate, and from the devs to 'do as the other companies do it'. We're building UIs nobody wants to use; our customers would much rather call us, and have us solve their problem in a 1min conversation rather than spend hours figuring it out by themselves. The company is extremely profitable btw
Just recently where I work, we dropped a major supplier of single board computers because their customer service was almost entirely unresponsive the one time we needed their support. We spent a million or two a year with them. Small potatoes in the big picture, but still significant money that is now going to one of their competitors.
That change was a significant cost to us as well, as it meant that the system we were using the boards in had to be redesigned to accommodate a different board.
Yeah, with B2B it's possible at least, since the businesses that pay for your services actually make money. Good customer support can directly and visibility impact their bottom line by reducing hours on debugging and any costs from downtime.
Average people wouldn't be willing to pay enough to provide such level of service.
Average people would switch to a $10/month service instead of $12/month. For internet, mobile plans, people in all sorts of circles brag about what a deal they were able to get with a service provider by haggling. Even when it's a $2 monthly difference. They are proud about their negotiation skills and how they pitted the service providers against each other to make the lowest bid.
Maybe once after they have received unsatisfactory customer support, they would consider switching, but passionate, skilled, caring and creative customer support would cost far, far more than that. Even if you employ enough customer support to provide a human out of the gate for everyone, you would only get people following the same script as the basic chatbot would. People and especially creative people wouldn't stay at this job for long, dealing with entitled customers. In most cases, it's mostly a thankless, dead end job that will get to your mental health.
> customer support would cost far, far more than that
That's not at all a given. Taking the example of $2 more per month, if the average customer needs a support call every two years, they could spend a whole hour on the phone with a support agent making $30/hr and the company is still ahead since they charged an extra $48 over those two years.
An realistically most support calls don't last an hour. Fifteen minutes maybe.
That's why I use Sonic for my ISP for example. I've only used support a few times in over ten years, but when I do, I want to talk to someone who knows what an IP packet is and what Linux is, not someone who just reads from a script telling me to find the start menu and click reboot.
Google has Google One that includes support (including by phone) and Drive/Mail/etc storage. You can literally pay them to get support and other things if you want to.
I don't know how well it's selling, but going off Internet comments here and there, people seem offended they are asked to pay to get support for an otherwise free at the point of use service.
Oh, one has been spectacularly useful to customers, by hallucinating a new, more customer friendly refund policy that courts held the company liable for:
Oh that is just excellent. I love the pathetic excuses they came up with trying to weasel their way out of having to honor promises made by their agents.
> Experts told the Vancouver Sun that Air Canada may have succeeded in avoiding liability in Moffatt's case if its chatbot had warned customers that the information that the chatbot provided may not be accurate.
This is disappointing, though. Can I weasel out of contracts if I say that the information I'm providing may not be accurate before signing?
reply