Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | snoman's commentslogin

If the government is going to gate access to frontier models from here on out, even if new releases are a step function change… which they’re not… then it may be even more comparable to what’s available with a subscription.

Considering that engineer never reliably estimated anything beyond a few days remotely accurately before… but now they can…


Can they? Or are they just estimating the time it takes to generate a working prototype?


As one that does, it’s a difficult discussion to have with the executives. My peers look like their teams are producing more than my teams are and any argument along the lines of “but their code sucks” isn’t going to hold water. The executives care but until there’s actual impact or poor quality, it won’t matter, and it’s a lagging metric. Many still don’t care about technical debt and that’s been well understood in industry for a while.

It’ll take production incidents, impacted customers, and brand damage to make the executives start to prioritize quality over quantity again.


1. And some that are equally skilled that don’t. It matters, internally, to them but it needn’t matter to anyone else.


On the flip side, there are people (like me) far less skilled that do (take joy in the appreciation of mathematics as art).


I wonder if there are different use cases. You sound like you’re using an LLM in a similar way to me. I think about the problem and solution, describe what I need implemented, provide references in the context (“the endpoint should be structured like this one…”) and then evaluate the output.

It sounds like other folks are more throwing an LLM at the problem to see what it comes up with. More akin to how I delegate a problem to one of my human engineers/architects. I understand, conceptually, why they might be doing that but I know that I stopped trying that because it didn’t produce quality. I wonder if the newer models are better at handling that ambiguity better.


I agree with you, but my gut tells me that a lot of people don’t know what a good outcome should/could look like and are accepting whatever it delivers.


I just sync down everything from my wife/kids’ Google Drive/Dropbox/whatever nightly to my NAS. Usability of a cloud solution, but with on-prem backup.


That’s so shockingly ignorant/reductive that you shouldn’t be surprised when people start ignoring you in technical conversations.


[flagged]


Yes, actually. Or at least I've thought of outsourcing my emotional needs to it, since it's quite good at conversation.

There's a whole subreddit devoted to this: http://reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI

and the reactionary subreddit: http://reddit.com/r/cogsuckers


That sentiment always comes from people who are better at fighting with communication.


My understanding is that, if you directly assist someone violate a ToS, you can be held liable.

Bad analogy but the getaway driver doesn’t need to enter the bank to be guilty in the robbery.


Surely there's no way that's true. The logical conclusion of that would be that every random ToS is a law that everyone must abide by, regardless of whether or not they've agreed to it.


By definition, it is exactly a law. It's known as business law. The ToS is a business contract which you must agree to if you wish to use the service. Violating terms of service is literally a breach of contract.


How can you breach a contract if you are not a party to a contract? OpenCode is not using any Anthropic services, they are just publishing some source code that seems (obligatory IANAL) to be protected speech under the First Amendment [0], if this legal argument is happening in American jurisdiction.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_as_speech


Interesting point. I've been looking into a similar issue recently, and for example LinkedIn won a lawsuit against the analytics company hiQ because they violated their ToS for scraping their website. And I think they also never technically had a direct contract they'd breach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn


Yes, but I think that there is a big difference. In the case you linked, hiQ were actually doing the scraping themselves.

People (or company? not sure) don't make any requests to Anthropic themselves. They just publish code that can make such requests.

I don't think that there is a legal precedent that would make publishing code that can do scraping illegal.


Yeah good point. I think if the scraping code is written specifically for a site / system that prohibits scraping through it's ToS, the company has an edge for a lawsuit. It's a bit of a gray area I think. It depends how much of a threat you form to the company you're scraping, and how big the company is.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: