this could be true about a miracle drug that is untested too. still, human rights laws dictate that humans be allowed to opt in to such trials. so you must at least shift your argument to "users opted in to all of anthropic's bullshit, explicit or otherwise, when they opt to install and run claude code."

CC is technically a free product (you can use it with any model). It's got very few popular "opinions" on how a coding harness should work, but it's by far the most popular one (including at competing LLM manufactories like OpenAI and Meta and Google). Why? If it was just that their models are 5% better, most workplaces would optimize on token (aka cost) efficiency.

Anthropic has been winning the usage of their harness, their tokens, while earning significant revenue, by significantly subsiding their token consumption.

This has earned them many things:

- prime data on how software development — simultaneously the leading beneficiary industry from LLM use, and also the most flush with cash to spend — has been using LLMs

- bringing that industry to standardize around their harness concepts. They are essentially establishing themselves as the W3C of LLM interfacing, except as a private organization.

- all dat data

I don't think this assertion holds true at all: https://i.redd.it/5wy659956rsc1.png

I believe the logical term "converse" means swapping the conclusion and the condition in a logical statement, ie converse(if A then B) = if B then A

So here the converse would be "if you're the product, you're not paying". Which doesn't exactly make sense to me as a claim to make here. Did you just mean to reinforce your first sentence? In which case, I think you mean "the inverse", not the converse. However, I have only used the word converse in a "formal logic" scope (proofs) so I'm not sure if it has a more flexible meaning in informal language use.

If you aren't ready to rig and adjust model poses in a 3D tool, you might be better off generating each movable model part as a separate mesh and just arranging them in space before doing the above.

If I install a powerful/dangerous app, and I come under harm, I have some accountability — most of it if it's due to user error (eg: I install termux and `rm -rf /`).

If it's malware, and Google/Apple approved said app to their store which is where I got it from, when their whole value proposition for walled-garden storefronts is protecting users, then they have significant accountability.

If the app requests more permissions than necessary for stated goals, and/or intentionally harms users via misrepresentation or misdirection (malware), the app publisher should also be held accountable (by the storefront, legally, etc).

I'm also unclear what angle you are arguing: are you stating that because tools have gotten so complicated that the end user may not understand how it all works, no one should be considered responsible or held accountable? Or that the tool (currently a non-entity) itself should be held accountable somehow? Or that no one other than the distributor of the tool should be accountable?*

"LLMs are a tool [like every other tool]" to mean "LLMs have similar properties to other tools" — when I believe they meant "LLMs are a tool. other tools are also tools," where the operative implication of "tool" is not about scope of capabilities or how deterministic its output is (these aren't defining properties of the concept of "tool"), but the relationship between 'tool' and 'operator':

- a tool is activated with operator intent (at some point in the call-chain)

- the operator is accountable for the outcomes of activating the tool, intended or otherwise

The capabilities and the abilities of a tool to call sub-tools is only relevant insofar as expressing how much larger the scope of damage and surface area of accountability is with a new generation of tools. This is not that different than past technological leaps.

When a US bomber dropped a nuke in Hiroshima, the accountability goes up the chain to the war-time president giving the authorization to the military and air force to execute the mission — the scope of accountability of a single decision was way larger than supreme commanders had in prior wars. If the US government decides to deploy an LLM to decide who receives and who is denied healthcare coverage, social security payments, voting rights, or anything else, the head of internal affairs to authorize the use of that tool should be held accountable, non-determinism of the tool be damned.

those who probably have exhausted all the various escape hatches built into the "vehicular manslaughter & mutilation forgiveness program" worldwide by the automobile industry, may get a year or so in prison — usually extreme repeat offenders, high profile deaths, homicide cases, or drivers who were already criminals just having the charge thrown in.

most people who "slipped up" are just fined and forgotten, at the cost of global pedestrian safety.

[0]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china-insider/article/1856923/do-s...

[1]: https://gothamist.com/news/95-of-nyc-drivers-avoid-criminal-...

Looks like HN hug of death killed your comments section though:

> An error occurred: API rate limit already exceeded for installation ID 65180581.

And if you somehow managed to open up a big enough VRAM playground, the open weights models are not quite as good at wrangling such large context windows (even opus is hardly capable) without basically getting confused about what they were doing before they finish parsing it.

> decided that simply being rich wasn't enough, they wanted to be famous

While these are true, the real detail is that these people were never satisfied with being rich -- they wanted to be powerful. And influence is what makes one powerful. Being rich goes a certain distance: once you have f you money, the only thing worth buying to gain more power is fame.

They also truly believe they have all the right ideas, and the validation that comes from being platformed for a financial success (often right-place-right-time type luck, but sometimes combined with genuine skill or insight in a relevant field) hardens them to all criticism.

As an indie dev, I generally like the guy's stance on shifting the PC gaming industry's support and financial incentive structures, so I'd be a bit surprised if he just did mass layoffs like Embracer and co.

That said, the article implies things that aren't necessarily canon: "cut jobs as Fortnite engagement falls" doesn't mean "cutting people because Fortnite is flagging". It's much more likely because the Epic Game Store struggles to push enough volume to recover the cost of developer acquisition on the platform.

Google and Apple require it for lots of mobile apps targeting certain consumer segments because some countries (eg: Brazil, IIRC? don't quote me on that) have chosen to use D&B as a qualified unique identifier of business legitimacy and it requires exposing personal information of your company's leadership to them.

I don't see how "estimates" given over the phone by the LLM and "estimate" as mentioned in this quote refers to the same thing, for the legal purpose of this statement. This would be strictly before repairs have been authorized, and it's obviously not a written estimate. If the client requests a written estimate, it would have to come at a later time after the human mechanic reviews related costs (like specialty parts availability/ship times), or the client bringing the machine in for physical inspection by the mechanic.

From my understanding of the article, it doesn't sound like the LLM is built to fully circumvent a customer phone call by the owner/mechanic before approving a job request unmanned: It's simply to not let go of a client lead because there was no one available to answer the phone, without needing to hire a full-time phone receptionist.

It seems highly unlikely a customer is towing their vehicle in without talking to the mechanic directly first, who now has some context and the ability to sift nonsense requests from realistic ones from the logs before calling or writing to the customer on their own time with all the expert nuance necessary.

Many live service games that are punishing for new players are still thriving like LoL and DOTA2. Much that punish-factor can be resolved by good matchmaking, putting new players mostly with each other.

It may be you don't believe in democracy at all, and that's fair, but consumer action is the only way you can affect business decisions, by joining the decision-cohort you agree with more. Joining the opposite cohort because it's less work represents that you're okay with things continuing in that direction.

That said, I agree with the work it takes to navigate cookie banners being excessive (hence dark pattern), which is why my default browser config = ublock + consent-o-matic [1]

[1]: https://consentomatic.au.dk/

the article headline immediately screams "financial gymnastics" to me so the rest followed from the quote.