Is it _objectively_ more productive? I doubt there's a clear-cut answer in the long run (my main suspicion is that since you're essentially creating 10x unnecessary complexity, you'll likely never recover from all the cruft and maintenance kills you in the end - maybe people will find solutions for that though).

I've actually tried this exact same model locally as well.. albeit on just a single 3090 at 128k context and I got around 40-60tok/s with Q4_K quantization.

The thing that bugged me the most was really the quality of the output on moderately complex real-world coding tasks. Having to switch between "prompt/vibe" and "manually implement" is such a big context switch burden, because you really have to ask yourself every few minutes if you're "holding it wrong" or the model is just too stupid.

It also doesn't really seem to handle transitions from "low-level implementation detail" to "high-level design" well, e.g., it wouldn't easily render tables and such. With Claude I don't have this issue.. so I think for now my verdict would be that it's not really a viable replacement. I really hope it will be in a few months time.

Oh and I used "aider" to replace claude CLI, which maybe that's also sub-optimal.. I'm not sure. The MCP marketplaces are useful of course, though arguably you could just manually replace them over time.

Of course when you put it like that it sounds completely ridiculous :)

Consider the opposite view: if pretending to be a human is "criminal behavior" there are about 8 billion criminals walking around on this planet.. and in this case our current legal system appears to be hijacked for the protection of utterly nonsensical, hopelessly broken, ancient business models from a rent-seeking, anti-consumer, creator-exploiting, trillion-dollar corporate mafia, which would like nothing better than to track, spy, and force-feed their audience at every turn.

I can't imagine "any price they want" is quite right here. At the very least, shouldn't we expect underwriters and other stakeholders (in this case Nasdaq, Inc.) to negotiate option-contracts as part of the IPO deal to cover their future obligations?

Yes, it might be a "worse" deal than those initial 5% - though we don't even know that - but then institutional investors time horizons are typically much longer than 6 months. Unless you think SpaceX goes straight down to 0, it seems like a risky but calculated, long-term investment.

I agree they could be more transparent about it, but maybe they will send out a notice in the prospectus update?