They're perfectly happy being an API provider, where they're not selling their tokens at a loss. My guess is that they're counting the losses for Claude Code Max plans as R&D: what does usage look like if people don't have to worry about the cost of tokens? Because someday they won't, and Anthropic want to skate to where the puck will be, not where it is.
Do you have an anthropic API key with money attached to that account? Do you think most people who have a subscription to Claude code have an API key for Anthropic and have money attached to that that they’re ready to spend?
Do you think those people who have an API key are ready to just give it to some random application rather than being directed to a Web or application based sign on mechanism serve served by a company they trust?
Even if the consumers are programmers, an API key is not a consumer instrument. There is no universe where you convert a whole number percentage of users in the scenario.
> Do you have an anthropic API key with money attached to that account?
Yes, I do. Getting a Gemini API key was annoying, but getting API keys for Claude and GPT were simple and straightforward.
The web-based redirect from a command-line tool is always far weirder and more awkward than just pasting in an API key.
Since we're talking about programmers here, they should realize that both the API key and the web-based redirect end up doing the same thing: generating a token that allows this program to act as you over the API.
"Legal action" means you filed a lawsuit. This looks more like someone sent a list of requested changes, backed up by an implicit or explicit threat of legal action.
That's how these things usually (should) go; a good legal system (be it civil suits, insurance claims, mediation, etc) will only actually take on cases if you've tried a reasonable approach first, e.g. asking nicely.
Fun fact: In Germany, the civil courts will usually take the case anyways if it has merit, but the winner ends up paying for the whole lawsuit if they failed to make an effort to resolve the case before suing.
For the same reason there were more bank branches after the cost-per-branch was reduced.
Right now, software is really expensive; so 1) economics tends to favor large pieces of software which solve many different kinds of problems, and 2) loads of things that should be automatable simply aren't being automated with software.
With the cost of software dropping, it makes more sense to have software targeted towards specific niches. Companies will do more in-house development, more things will be automated than were being automated before.
Of course nobody knows what will happen; but it's entirely possible that the demand for people capable of driving Claude Code to produce useful software will explode.
> > But it is also hard to be with someone and is very hard to take care of kids and family and such. And it is waaay harder to be with wrong person.
> I don't know what "being with the wrong person" means. There is no "right" or "wrong" person as the world doesn't revolve around you.
Ho boy. Listen, I was married for 6 years, separated / divorced for 5 years, and now have been married for 10 years. You have no idea what kind of hell those last few years of the first marriage were. I had no idea until I'd been separated for a year, and gotten back to some sense of normalcy. I can't even describe to you what it's like to live in a house where you're emotionally wounded continually, or to realize the best you can hope from an attempt at a "date" is "it didn't explode".
One of the problems my ex and I had getting help was that people just couldn't seem to understand how bad it was. We'd describe something, people would say, "Oh yeah, marriage is hard, it will get better." Well no; our marriage was way worse, and it never got better.
The second marriage is so different. It's the kind of hard you're talking about -- we put in effort, it pays off. We argue, then we sort things out. We're not like some movie romance, but we're fundamentally a team. Some part of it is certainly "I learned something"; but a big part of it was definitely "It wasn't all me".
ETA: And, apparently, my ex has now been married to someone else for 11 years. Again, I'm sure she learned something from the disaster of our marriage that helped her in her second one. But I can't help but think there was something more than that: something difference in personality between myself and her current husband, such that she and I couldn't work things out but the two of them can.
> It’s patently clear2 that the license allows this, and it surprises me that this is rarely brought up in debates about GPL-3.0-only and GPL-3.0-or-later.
It's an interesting avenue, but the ultimate problem is that people die and/or lose interest in projects. What happens to this particular project if Runxi dies, or decides to make furniture out of wood instead? That basically becomes "GPL-3.0-only" again.
When a copyright holder dies, their copy rights pass on to their heirs. Depending on the state, this means it can go to cousins or twelfth cousins twice removed if that's all that is alive. Failing that, it goes to the state. Any/all of these could potentially sue if there is money in it.
They could, which is why I said when the copyright holder loses the ability to sue, not when the creator dies.
When it's a twelfth cousin they won't even know they have the copyright. Because it's an implicit right, they don't enumerate all your copyrights and tell your heir about them. The heir has to know.
You enter an "unclear title" scenario which may mean that individuals are fine using it, but no company wants to get involved because of the risks.
Similar things happen with physical property, where a title cannot be cleared and either people just live with it or they go to court to get it "reset".
OK, so a while back I set up a workflow to do language tagging. There were 6-8 stages in the pipeline where it would go out to an LLM and come back. Each one has its own prompt that has to be tweaked to get it to give decent results. I was only doing it for a smallish batch (150 short conversations) and only for private use; but I definitely wouldn't switch models without doing another informal round of quality assessment and prompt tweaking. If this were something I was using in production there would be a whole different level of testing and quality required before switching to a different model.
The big providers are gonna deprecate old models after a new one comes out. They can't make money off giant models sitting on GPUs that aren't taking constant batch jobs. If you wanna avoid re-tweaking, open weights are the way. Lots of companies host open weights, and they're dirt cheap. Tune your prompts on those, and if one provider stops supporting it, another will, or worst case you could run it yourself. Open weights are now consistently at SOTA-level at only a month or two behind the big providers. But if they're short, simple prompts, even older, smaller models work fine.
> "..am I alone in finding the expression 'it turns out' to be incredibly useful? It allows you to make swift, succinct, and authoritative connections between otherwise randomly unconnected statements without the trouble of explaining what your source or authority actually is. It's great. It's hugely better than its predecessors 'I read somewhere that...' or the craven 'they say that...' because it suggests not only that whatever flimsy bit of urban mythology you are passing on is actually based on brand new, ground breaking research, but that it's research in which you yourself were intimately involved. But again, with no actual authority anywhere in sight."
It kinda reminds me of replying to a statement with "So...it's come to this..."
My friends and I use to do this all the time for no particular reason except to turn an otherwise ordinary conversation into challenge that can only be resolved by mortal combat.
Of course, we did it jokingly with each other. But when someone we didn't know heard us do this they were genuinely confused with what we were so offended by, which was half the fun.
> the article doesn't include any facts that indicate this.
It does include two facts:
1. That the reporter's bio on the webpage changed "...is a reporter at Ars" to "...was a reporter at Ars". On the one hand, that's pretty thin sauce. On the other hand, that's not exactly the sort of change that gets made randomly.
2. They reached out to the various people involved, and although nobody has confirmed it, it's also the case that nobody has denied it.
I mean fired and resigned when it became clear you'd be fired are the same thing really.
We're not actually entitled to know the exact details of someone's job ending. They worked there. Now they don't. That much is the bit we're entitled to.
For public misconduct like this, we should get to know if he was fired (or asked to resign) as opposed to his making the independent decision to find work elsewhere or retire or whatever. We should get to know if he left because the company wanted him gone or because he wanted to be gone.
reply