For smaller companies they can get Claude team plan for $20/month/seat and the plans give a lot of usage. We rarely hit limits. Codex plans used to have more usage and those were the go-to. Before that, GitHub Copilot CLI was the service with insane usage limits for $10-$20/month.
So it's about staying nimble enough so you can easily switch over. Don't tie yourself down to a single product/harness.
The Claude Team plan is subsidized, and pricing for them is significantly less than what enterprises pay with API pricing. For example, your $20/month plan would cost the equivalent of $400/month if they charged you using API pricing.
That's why those plans are only available to small companies with 150 employees or less.
> That's why those plans are only available to small companies with 150 employees or less.
As far as I can tell, that's not the limit. A team plan may not have more than 150 members but the size of the company doesn't matter. I you have 150 people who need to use it inside an organization of 200, 500, 5,000, whatever, that's fine.
Accenture isn't a giant software company though. For the sort of things their employees do, that might be a reasonable average (think chat, PowerPoint, a bit of research).
Yes, considering their CEO said that AI usage was a requirement for promotion earlier this year [0]. Companies are backpedaling now when the AI bills come out and bite them.
As soon as you scale out to multiple machines, you're already thinking about non-uniform access. If you just push that down one layer further, I don't see all that much of a difference if you're already having to do the work in your software to deal with it.
Neither electricity, nor the Internet is provided by one or two organizations globally, both with a blast radius that quite often takes out all of their services.
Not sure how long the latter will remain true – centralization is well underway there; try not to think of Cloudflare too much...
Globally no, but in the US there probably at most 2 providers covering your area + 5G/LTE providers. Electricity - single provider in the area. So if your job is on-site, then entire company stops working when either goes out. You don't really care that another company on the other side of the globe or street continues working.
We already got used to "internal going down globally" when AWS was the main cloud provider. Now its 3, AWS, GCP, Cloudflare, but "portion of internet that you care about is down for the entire world" is a casual thing to happen now.
> You don't really care that another company on the other side of the globe or street continues working.
As somebody in need of a doctor, on a plane etc. I'd definitely consider it much worse if all hospitals, air traffic controllers etc. stopped working at the same time instead of just a local subset.
Yes this is exactly my assumption as well. I think ppl forgot before agents it was expected slo to have a ttft in range of a few hundard ms, which is what jev is also achieving.
Thats also why it feels weird they say they don't "charge for output tokens" since its literally generating a single (or at most very few tokens).
They're calling it "live" and "near real-time" because they're aggregating the data from underlying sources daily, whereas traditionally that happened only on much larger time scales.
It's not very fast compared to most things often called "live", so perhaps it's not a great label for this demo viewer, but the goal of the project seems to be to make the data available for research, not so much for this map.
yes this is my understanding as well, and based on [1] seems to be the case. I don't know why everyone is just believing the un-backed accusations of people probably just didn't turn off said setting (and if they did why have they not said anything to such effect)
> I don't know why everyone is just believing the un-backed accusations
Conspiratorial thinking is very common on these topics. Even bringing up the conspiracy theory about Instagram listening to your conversations and showing you related ads will bring up a surprising amount of people defending that idea on Hacker News.
Frankly, there's no way any arch venue at the time would have done anything beyond rejecting it with "caches make RSA fast, what's the problem?"
Security wasn't something CPU designers paid much attention to, and cryptography wasn't something they were even particularly aware of. Even seven years ago, when an Intel VP was giving a talk at re:Invent about "processor technologies for improving security in virtual machines", my question to him about cache collision side channel attacks was met with "what's a side channel attack?"
reply