It would not completely de-legitimize it. Maybe a government doesn't want anyone to know they are surveilling a suspect. But it definitely would reduce cash flow at commercial spyware companies, which could put some out of business.
It feels like Anthropic's models from 6 months ago. I mean, it's great progress in the open weight world, but I don't have time to use anything less than the very best for the coding I do. At the same time, if Anthropic and OpenAI disappeared tomorrow, I could survive with GLM-5.
Claude: you get rate-limited with one prompt so hard to validate 4.6
Codex: better with rate-limits, 5.2 strong with logic problems
Cursor: cursor auto - a bit dumb still but I use the most for writing not really thinking, it's also good at searching through codebase and doing summaries etc.
Claude / Codex still miss tons of scaffolding for sane development or it's due to sandboxes or sth. Like for example you ask in /plan mode to check think with link to github and it does navigate github via curl, hitting rate limits etc. instead of just git clone, repomix etc. so scaffolding still matters a lot. Like it still lacks a tons of common sense
I have Claude Max plan which makes me feel like I could code anything. I'm not talking about vibe-coding greenfield projects. I mean, I can throw it in any huge project, let it figure out the architecture, how to test and run things, generate a report on where it thinks I should start... Then I start myself, while asking claude code for very very specific edits and tips.
I also can create a feedback loop and let it run wild, which also works but that needs also planning and a harness, and rules etc. Usually not worth it if you need to jump between a million things like me.
Smooth sailing and still frustrating at times. I have very high standards for the code that goes into production at my company. Nothing is getting yoloed. Everything is getting reviewed. Using Claude Code with a Max plan.
There are a lot of comments not liking zulip. I wonder if the like/dislike feeling is tied to the size of the user/company of the poster. My experience is the zulip works very well in my small 3 person fully remote business. Maybe the UI workflow of Zulip breaks down with larger numbers of users?
I used it in a 3 person company and I hated it for many of the reasons stated here. The topic based UX is terrible in practice and the whole thing feels janky and ugly.
I simply do not believe that all of these people can and want to setup a CI. Some maybe, but even after the agent will recommend it only a fraction of people would actually do it. Why would they?
But if you setup CI, you can pick up the mobile site with your phone, chat with Copilot about a feature, then ask it to open a PR, let CI run, iterate a couple of times, then merge the PR.
All the while you're playing a wordle and reading the news on the morning commute.
It's actually a good workflow for silly throw away stuff.
No, they won't be. Inference costs will continue to drop, and subscription prices will follow as AI is increasingly commoditized. There are 6 different providers in the top 10 models on openrouter. In a commoditized market, there will be no $60/month subscriptions.
It's also true that their inference costs are being heavily subsidized. For example, if you calculate Oracles debt into OpenAIs revenue, they would be incredibly far underwater on inference.
Not is it only dumb, but it is plain unimplementable. Are they saying the HMI interfaces on CNC machines need to be able to parse the GCode generated by any of dozens of CAM software options out there and divine if it might be gun related? That is not possible.
I don't think so. There are other knobs they can tweak to reduce load that affect quality less than quantizing. Like trimming the conversation length without telling you, reducing reasoning effort, etc.
You said "like that", ok but there may be some truth to reduced model intelligence. Also how AWS deployed Anthropic models for Amazons Kiro feel much dumber than those controlled entirely by Anthropic. Can't be just me
The One China policy is a fiction of foreign policy statecraft, designed to sideline the issue without having to actually deal with it. It is quite clear that apart from the official fiction there is a real policy that is not One China. This is made clear by the weapons sales to Taiwan that specifically calibrated to make a Chinese military action harder.
reply