17M seems like a rounding error these days with all the AI investments. Probably some spare cash in a fund that needed to be closed or something.

Solving actual problems are hard, and even harder to get money for (see research). Most VC’s are in it for the returns only, not actually making a change, there are some exceptions but they are far and few apart.

We have been hearing this since GPT-2. They’ve been crying wolf for too long, that’s on them (the model providers). That and the fact they never publish anything interesting around their claims. It’s the ffmpeg thing all over again (very old bug in a decoder for a format used by one game from the early 90’s sold as some major breakthrough).

Doesn’t matter, they are not handling it correctly, but instead keep selling while far over capacity. They should not accept more users until they can supply the service. We solved this thousands of years ago, it’s called waiting in line. And yes, it’s not common to see, but that doesn’t excuse not doing it.

Curious as to how many people are using 4.6, perhaps you’re on a subscription? I use the api and 4.6 (also goes for Sonnet) is unusable since launch because it eats through tokens like it’s actually made that way (to make more money/hit limits faster). I guess it makes sense from a financial perspective but once 4.5 goes away I will have to find another provider if they continue like this :/

We are on MAX.

519K lines of code for something that is using the baseline *nix tools for pretty much everything important, how do they even manage to bloat it this much? I mean I know how technically, but it's still depressing. Can't they ask CC to make it good, instead of asking it to make it bigger?

What? We must have different internets, I agree in general, but the "AI is the second coming" crowd is louder than standing next to a jet on takeoff. I'm in the "AI is making me more productive but a worse developer" crowd, don't know what I count as.

You got shuttled into one bubble and the previous commenter into another advertising / news bubble. It's incredible how different the media experience is for people in different media bubbles.

I wouldn't trust those claims from any private companies, even public ones play the most insane tricks in earnings calls to inflate numbers or heck, just make up new ones.

I'm not saying they're wrong, but I don't take much stock in their words.

As others have said, the title is bollocks. For any mismanaged infrastructure you can make these crazy claims. If they did it today it would be ”saved $100/year”.

The thing is, if it took them a day with AI it would’ve been _at most_ a week without it. So why did they wait? Someone is not being responsible with the company funds.

Survivorship bias. For every success you describe there are nine or so failures. Skill being involved doesn’t exclude being lucky, and I believe being lucky (some people call it timing) is of utmost importance.

Ya, I respect this view. It is not the view I have, but I understand how you can have it. Eg, this is how I feel about most famous portfolio managers. Really my comment is addressed to the other view -- if it _isn't_ luck, then I think we should put some weight in what the successful practitioners say, and the ones I've heard do endorse the lean startup & co.

But it doesn't make the survivors wrong about their experience. Two truths: their experience did happen roughly how they said it happened + they got very lucky.

Seems like all the other 9 that died insist on telling the one that survived that they were somehow wrong.

For sure, I do get that one can "do everything right" and still fail, I get that point, I get that there is no formula. But it seems like people want the reverse to be true: that everyone successful is only a lucky buffoon.

Sure, but I like it to my military service, I remember the good parts only, unless I start digging. Nobody wants to read about normal life, either you claim success or you claim failure, in between sells no copies.

Thank you for the much needed refresher on what running a business actually entails for many.