Perhaps they are preparing for a switch to usage-based pricing for everything at some point and are thinking of ways to burn tokens? Not to be conspiratorial but many companies think like that, and tokens = money at this point.
It’s absolutely on purpose, everything is with these people.
For example if you ask Claude chat to write something of a certain length, it won’t, it’ll just reply at the same length as everything else. Why? Because they’re billing at a fixed price. They don’t want you to get a whole essay as an answer because you’re on a plan.
Claude code on the other hand, which is supposedly the same model, will happily write out a billion lines because it is billed by the token.
From the subscription plans Claude code consumes the same usage as the chat, and offers the same unsubsidized usage credits, which is close to billing per token.
If you read the model specs, they have a maximum output length. If you are running into that it might simply be that you are seeing the difference with a harness that can allow it to take another turn automatically and build up the output in a file vs the chat which may not be able to, though they do get some tools there.
The response output length limit includes the thinking tokens.
Almost certainly. I work for a large company that does financial modelling and analytics for risk. That's the only working model that they have going forwards and believe me it's going to be expensive. They are operating at a loss. And they will be introducing that before they go IPO. They're delaying the IPOs through some of the "we're not ready" PR statements to get as many people dependent on the product as possible and to avoid making public finance statements.
It's going to be a mess very soon. A huge mess. A huge incremental cost mess.
You're being hooked on the good heroin and they're going to charge you for the shit stuff later.
instead of depleted uranium tipped ammunition we'll use deprecated ram chips.
said that as a joke then remembered how all the drone weapons being used in ukrane/elsewhere are in a way just computer chips with explosives and motors... so ya you may have a real point.
So, currently, if you sign up as a fake new customer , you get rotated on the good stuff? So i can get the blue caps with that - and dilute it down myself?
Customers pay for things that are useful. If the token drifts from being a reasonable proxy for what is useful, customers won’t accept being charged on that basis (or jump to the best trade).
If I have an employee who works 1 hour and builds me a beautiful cabinet and another who builds one in the same time, with a door falling off, the one with less productivity per hour (token) is not getting a call back.
Depends on the definition of useful. In a corporation "useful" is "checks regulatory boxes" - it doesn't need to actually be useful, it must just pretend to be useful.
Hence all the shit customer service processes. They are useful to the corporation as in that they tick the "we have customer service" box. Whether the consultant just hangs up on you instantly after picking up doesn't matter.
FTA:
The same disclosure showed positive adjusted operating income for the period. The figures are preliminary, unaudited, and could be revised before the prospectus lands.
Like, adjusted can cover a whole host of sins. Until we see the GAAP audited numbers, nobody but Anthropic employees and investors know.
“While Anthropic offers more to society than WeWork ever did, at a $2 trillion valuation, its IPO presents far bigger risks and is positioned to be a far bigger rip off of U.S. capital markets,” New Constructs wrote, adding that the IPO’s purpose isn’t to provide wealth for public markets investors, but rather liquidity for the company’s Wall Street backers.
Targeting the disease-spreading species is the point, there are 3,500+ species and only a handful of them cause widespread suffering in humans, and the predators of those are generalists and would survive on other insects.
Alphabet also has nearly infinite money to pour into this endeavor from their advertising enterprise, so much so that AI/LLMs could all fall apart and they would be happy to go back to selling mid-roll campaigns on youtube videos.
I will tell my story: I found a huge accounting error that allowed for several employees to embezzle funds. I disclosed it to the main stakeholders and some people went to jail. The accounting team still refused to acknowledge that the mistake was theirs, so I left on principle.
A few weeks later, I was talking to an old colleague and they revealed that the story that came from stakeholders was that the accounting team found the error, and I left in disgrace (despite that not being my department?).
So if you find an embarrassing mistake and you do not control the narrative, you have to proceed very carefully.
Had one like that. I quit and they blamed me for a project failure after the fact. That pissed off a couple of colleagues who thought it might happen to them. They also quit leaving them entirely without a software team. Set them back ten years because they didn’t make the market in time.
Write everything down and make sure everyone knows you’re writing it down. Saves a lot of hassle like that.
I wanted to be snarky, but it responded to my risky question about corporate mergers with some genuinely helpful advice on how to file complaints with the FTC. Not bad!
If you own a network and the servers, you can DPI every single packet and see literally every bit of information. All of the text to the "forum" that they created must have been in -outbound- packets to their compromised package manager, by definition. If they can't properly analyze network traffic, they should not be running 'sandboxes'.
Anything beyond baseline would be observable- silence, malformed packets, too much egress, unusually large packets, etc
reply