Also, the token prices of these open source models are at a fraction of Anthropic's Opus 4.6[1]

[1]: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/#pricing

For example, SWE-bench Pro improved ~11% compared with Opus 4.6. Should one interpret it as 4.7 is able to solve more difficult problems? or 11% less hallucinations?

I liked how easy I can tell it to do something for me but token usage didn't justify the cost. I 'd either had to use smarter model which could cost a lot more or cheaper model which, in one instance, stuck in a loop

Product-wise, it's an awesome tool. Imagine having your own butler for anything except that the reliability with affordable isn't here yet to do anything serious

It seems a counter intuitive to Anthropic's message that Claude uncovered bugs in open source project*.

[*] https://www.anthropic.com/news/mozilla-firefox-security

Consider this overly simplified process of writing a logic to satisfy a requirement:

1. Write code

2. Verify

3. Fix

We, humans, know the cost of each step is high, so we come up various way to improve code quality and reduce cognitive burden. We make it easier to understand when we have to revisit.

On the other hand, LLMs can understand** a large piece of code quickly***, and in addition, compile and run with agentic tools like Claude Code at the cost of token****. Quality does not matter to vibe coders if LLMs can fill the function logic that satisfies the requirement by iterating the aforementioned steps quickly.

I don't agree with this approach and have seen too many things broken from vibe code, but perhaps they are right as LLMs get better.

* Anecdotal

** I see LLM as just a probabilistic function so it doesn't "reason" like humans do. It's capable of highly advanced problem solving yet it also fails at primitive task.

*** Relative to human

**** Cost of token I believe is relatively cheaper compared to a full-time engineer and it'll get cheaper over time.

> 67% given to developers per in-experience dollar spent

Profit given to dev is $0.25 per dollar spent, not $0.67. It's as simple as that. I understand Roblox needs to maintain infra, support regional regulation, etc, but that's Roblox's business operational cost and shouldn't claim the delta of $0.42 is "given to developers" because developers never received it

Audience is the problem here. It's obviously not a big deal if the platform is targeted for adults, but majority of users are underage. The platform can certainly implement guardrails for the vulnerable users if they wish to

Compare with other platforms. Payout model is as simple as platform takes % or fixed fee, rest is dev to keep. There's no verbiage that says dev share is 67% but you they actually get paid less.

What exactly goes behind the platform is platform's business, not the user. If developers are getting paid out $0.25 per dollar spent, that's the developers profit and rest is spent running the platform which is Roblox's concern.

Games are filled with loot boxes that drop exquisite items on chance. It's a repeated cycle of charging robux only to spend on another slot machine.

US regulation is far behind protecting children from such scheme. Japan disallows many forms of such loot boxes due to addictive nature.

This is misleading because for every dollar spent, $0.67 is not what developers get paid. The link (https://create.roblox.com/docs/monetize-experiences) you referenced clearly says 25% is the "Developer share".

The cost to run the platform is the platform's cost."Platform hosting & support" and "App stores & payment processing fees" should not be considered as developer operational cost

1. Debugging for troubleshooting.

2. Analytical for making product better.

3. Bugs that collects your info when it shouldn't.

4. Bugs from 3rd party vendor if company uses those.

5. Insecure process. Getting access to a private content within the company is trivial due to coarse permission model.

Source: I worked at two well known social media companies. Trust & Safety and data infra teams

Because of this, I found it odd that the regulation allows displaying the accept cookies button. Instead, it should be rejecting cookies by default and a separate flow to accept tracking cookies (e.g. via account settings page)

Why not invest in ways to make these processes more eco friendly?