Wouldn't they tell us before IPO? Unless it's not that promising...

> AI is also gaining a much wider audience and acceptance. It's likely over the next few years, AI demand will grow, not stagnate.

That does not mean the current players profit from this and the infrastructure investments were necessary at that scale. There is competition, there seem to be enormous efficiency gains and it's questionable that demand for even bigger models is large enough.

Quite true. Although there is a distinction, you definitely can use it as a tool but many indeed just lazily create slop.

What might change is that the barrier to enter the market is lowered so someone without gigantic investment and years of time could actually come out with e.g. a JIRA competitor ticking all the boxes. This drives the vendors margins down. Also might give the buyer more negotiation power if you can say "then we just do our own version".

There is a lot of vendor lock in the software world just because it's just too hard/risky to do a full featured competitor, that might change and eat into the margins of especially those vendors. For those who also have healthy competition, the relative dynamics probably don't change much, agreed.

Someone stealing from the stealing machine, oh that irony. Also hard to tell if they really have such a huge problem with it as that token spend makes their numbers go up significantly.

> One is competition from "open" models and just the complete lack of any moat for anyone this many years into things, and the second is that if all the software developers who are writing vibe coded clones of commercial software actually do lose their day jobs because the software companies they worked for go under (and if there are no more jobs for them to go to because this is happening everywhere), they eventually won't be able to afford the big lab subscriptions for personal use, so both pools of customers for the AI labs collapse in a related way.

If they hike up prices they kill demand, either because they compete with humans or open weight ... and now it's both actually. If they don't hike up prices they can't pay the bills for their absurd capex and they kill demand long term because there will be no one left to pay for it. Pretty fucked up situation I would say.

I think this is one of the biggest open questions, not only for cloning software but for "vibe coding" in general. How hard is it actually to turn such things into polished products? Is it even feasiable or are you just drowning in slop at some point?

Mythos turned out to be exactly the marketing stunt it smelled like.

There are others like AISLE who seem to be a bit more successful in finding actual issues using LLMs in some shape or form though, whatever they do differently. Chances are high the secret sauce is not so much about the model being exceptionally powerful which would be bad news for the frontier labs.

Might be a short one though if all goes to plan. Just another form of gatekeeping the worlds information and with new gatekeepers replacing the old ones.

> At the same time it's truly baffling going on a site called _hacker_ news and seeing corpo talking points from the 90s/00s regurgitated wholesale. Information wants to be free.

Look at who owns that site, no surprise here.

Back in the day there was no real benefit. Today it's different as most Linux distros don't really care much about supporting 32 bit anymore.

Today realistically I don't think it really makes that much sense to bother with those devices even for small home servers. You can e.g. get used thin clients for cheap which run circles around those old CPUs and support way more RAM while likely being as power efficient if not more. At the bare minimum I would avoid using any 32 bit x86 CPU for running anything modern, even Debian dropped official support for that architecture now.