Yeah, also if a SaaS costs, 10k a year, I promise its not not more cost effecient to pull your 10k a month engineer off their usual work to build and then maintain some vibe coded slope everytime an edge case occurs.
Also many customers of SaaS have little to zero engineering staff, they are in construction, resturaunts, law offices ect. These takes are so assanine.
Even in companies that have SWE, do you really want to divert in-house SWE time to something as exciting as ... accounting rules and making sure your inventory is auditable? Or any number of the weird compliance things associated with most B2B software for a medium-size business?
Is there a place on the internet where folks like yourself, who seemingly have a way to think economically congregate? I personally dont know of one, for which if I did, I wouldnt visit here anymore.
So many takes on here are so lazy and simpleton that when you go a few levels deeper all the flaws get exposed.
Its funny you mention this, I was going to say that the only communities I've found online where +EV thinking is the norm is in professional gambling circles. However, those exist basically only in closed off discord and telegram chats, where we are actively manipulating polymarket/kalshi markets && comment sections :)
I refer to it as "Think for me SaaS", and it should be avoided like the plague. Literally, it will give your brain a disease we haven't even named yet.
It's as if I woke up in a world where half of resturaunts worldwide started changing their name to McDonalds and gaslighting all their customers into thinking McDonalds is better than their "from scratch" menu.
Just dont use these agentic tools, they legitimately are weapons who's target is your brain. You can ship just as fast with autocomplete and decent workflows, and you know it.
Its weird, I dont understand why any self respecting dev would support these companies. They are openly hostile about their plans for the software industry (and many other verticles).
I see it as a weapon being used by a sect of the ruling class to diminsh the value of labor. While im not confident they'll be successful, I'm very disappointed in my peers that are cheering them on in that mission. My peers are obviously being tricked by promises of being able join that class, but that's not what's going to happen.
You're going to lose that thinking muscle and therefor the value of your labor is going to be directly correlated to the quantity and quality of tokens you can afford (or be given, loaned!?)
I'm with you. It scares me how quickly some of my peers' critical thinking and architectural understanding have noticeably atrophied over the last year and a half.
This doesn't make sense, earnest money would be in escrow until the title clears. The scammer would never have access to the earnest money, nor would it ever get transferred to them unless the buyer took too long to close, or didn't come up with funds?? Like the title company would almost have to be involved for this to work.
The title is often actually transfered, and it is a mess to clean up.
You could walk into a court house and submit paperwork for filing, that transfers the title - all without any kind of sale or verification. It happens.
Hmm, I guess you technically just need to convince a notary that you're the seller and with virtual closings/ mobile notaries I guess that's probably pretty easy.
But still the scammer would never see the earnest money, unless the buyer backed out outside of an option period for whatever reason. Presumably they wouldn't if the land is cheap, and they've agreed to pay cash and put earnest money down.
Is there a single case of the scammer getting a single dollar from one of these scams? My suspicion is that there isn't. (Everyone who doesn't know the answer and isn't curious should downvote me.)
Well yes, I assume that too. But the article says they'll pocket the earnest money which makes zero sense. Probably another example of someone incapable of writing an article by themselves and used an LLM.
>"7. If they get farther they’ll pocket the earnest money deposit which would have been significant in my case."
The global freight carrier storefronts around me all have notary services. I used them to notarize the documents from my last home sale; they glanced at my ID to the extent that they checked it matched the name on the paperwork, and signed off on it.
Yeah I wonder if this entire "scam" is a scammer's urban legend, where one scammer brags that they successfully executed it and all the rest try it a few times and eventually give up. Sort of like the search for pirate gold.
Offshore windmills legitimately do interfere with some of these military radars monitoring the coastline that are probably top secret, or so I'm told by people that would know. However, I doubt that's the only reason of course.
Rocks are conscious people have more sense than those with the strange supernatural belief in special souls that make humans different from any other physical system.
No I'd really like to understand. Are people who make this weird argument aware that they believe in souls and ok with it or do they think they don't believe in souls? You tell me which you are.
I am just asking him to clarify if he things "rocks" can't be conscious simply because they are not human or because he just thinks its not yet at a level but there is no argument against any other physical system being conscious just like the physical system that is a human.
I am asking him to clarify whether he believes its simply impossible for anything human to be conscious, or that he thinks current LLM's are not conscious but its quite possible for a physical system to be conscious just like the physical system called Human is conscious.
I might be misunderstanding GP but I take it to mean "rock are conscious" => "silicon is conscious" => "agents are conscious", which might appeal to some uneducated audience, and create fascination around these stochastic parrots. Which is obviously ridiculous because its premises are still rooted in physicalism, which failed hard on its face to account for anything even tangentially related to subjectivity (which has nothing to do with the trivial mainstream conception of "soul").
I looked up physicalism, it sounds perfectly normal? What else exists that isn't physical and why can't we call that a soul or the supernatural? By definition since its supposedly not physical. We haven't yet found anything non physical in the universe, why this strange belief that our brains would be non physical?
Since it's an old debate that a lot of smart people spent a lot of time thinking about, the best short / simple answer you'll see for it is "you might want to read some more about it". A few keywords here are qualia, perception, descartes and the evil deceiver, berkeley and immaterialism, kant and synthetic a-priori, the nature of the reality of mathematical objects and mathematical truth, etc. If you think it's easy, for sure you have not understood the question yet.
I am glad I learned of all this philosophical background. But I am asserting most people who claim "rocks therefore not conscious" haven't thought through this and are doing this based on some unknown supernaturalism.
Why not, we are physical systems, computers are physical systems. If not soul, what is this magical non physical special sauce that makes us special and makes it easy to claim silicon is not conscious.
I don't know, you tell me: how do you _exactly_ go from quantities to qualities? Keep in mind that the "physical" is a model of our perception and nothing else.
What are quantities and qualities? Does exciting electrical and chemical signals in the brain and therefore inducing emotions or perceptions factor into this or is it out of scope? Or are you saying its more like a large scale state like heat in physics. If you what is it you seek beyond being able to identify the states associated with perceptions? If you are saying these "qualities" are non-verbal. Very well, do you mean non-verbal as not among the usual human languages like English, French, German, or do you mean in the most general sense as not representable by any alphabet set. We represent images, video, audio etc freely in various choices of alphabet daily on computers, so I am sure you didn't mean in that sense.
That's the point in contention, how to go from "electrical and chemical signals" (the quantities, mole, charge, mass, momentum, coulomb, spin) to qualities (emotions, perception, first-person perspective, private inner life, subjectivity). The jump you are making is the woo part: we have no in-principle avenue to explain this gap, so accepting it is a religious move. There is no evidence of such directed causal link, yet it is (generally) accepted on faith. If you think there is a logical and coherent way to resolve the so called "hard problem of consciousness" which doesn't result in a category error, we are all ears. The Nobel committee is too.
I agree that claiming that rocks are conscious on account of them being physical systems, like brains are, is at the very least coherent. However you would excuse if such claim is met with skepticism, as rock (and CPUs) don't look like brains at all, as long as one does not ignore countless layers of abstractions.
You can't argue for rationality and hold materialism/physicalism at the same time.
I also come at it from another direction. Would you accept that other, non-human beings have consciousness. Not just animals, but in principle would you accept a computer program or any other machine that doesn't look like the molecular structure of a human can be conscious? I am of course hoping I am not wrong in assuming you won't disagree that assembling together in the lab or otherwise via means thats not the usual human reproduction, a molecule that is the same as a human would result in a perfectly uncontroversial normal conscious human right.
Since you can say its just a "mimic" and lacks whatever "aphysical" essence. And you can just as well say this about other "humans" than yourself too. So why is this question specially asked for computer programs and not also other people.
What if a working Neuralink or similar is demonstrated? Does that move the needle on the problem?
Betting against what people are calling "physicalism" has a bad track record historically. It always catches up.
All this talk of "qualia" feels like Greeks making wild theories about the heavens being infinitely distant spheres made of crystals and governed by gods and what not. In the 16th century, Improved Data showed the planets and stars are mere physical bodies in space like you and I. And without that data, if we were ancient greeks we'd equally like you say but its not even "conceptually" possible to say what the heavens are, or if you think they did have a at least somewhat plausible view given that some folks computed distances to sun and moon, then take Atomism as the better analogy. There was no way to prove or disprove Atomism in ancient greek times. To them it very well was an incomprehensible unsolavable problem because they lacked the experimental and mathematical tooling. Just like "consciousness" appears to us today. But the Atomism question got resolved with better data eventually. Likewise, its a bad bet to say just because it feels incontrovertible today, consciousness also won't be resolved some day.
I'd rather not flounder about in endless circular philosophies until we get better data to anchor us to reality. I would again say, you are making a very strange point. "Materialism"/"physicalism" has always won the bet till now. To bet against it has very bad precedent. Everything we know till now shows brains are physical systems that can be excited physically, like anything else. So I ask now, assume "Neuralink" succeeds. What is the next question in this problem after that? Is there any gap remaining still, if so what is the gap?
Edit: I also get a feeling this talk about qualia is like asking "What is a chair?" Some answer about a piece of woodworking for sitting on. "But what is a chair?" Something about the structure of wood and forces and tensions. "But what is a chair?" Something about molecules. "But what is a chair?" Something about waves and particles. It sounds like just faffing about with "what is" and trying to without proof pre-assert after "what ifing" away all physical definitions somehow some aetherial aphysical thing "must" exist. Well I ask, if its aphysical, then what is the point even. Its aphyical then it doesn't interact with the physical world and is completely ignored.
More adoption? I don't think so... It feels to me that these models && tools are getting more verbose/consuming more tokens to compensate for a decrease in usage. I know my usage of these tools has fallen off a cliff as it become glaringly obvious they're useful in very limited scopes.
I think most people start off overusing these tools, then they find the few small things that genuinely improve their workflows which tend to be isolated and small tasks.
Moltbot et al, to me, seems like a psyop by these companies to get token consumption back to levels that justify the investments they need. The clock is ticking, they need more money.
I'd put my money on token prices doubling to tripling over the next 12-24 months.
What do weights have to do with how much it costs to run inference? Inference is heavily subsidized, the economics of it don't make any sense.
Anthropic and OpenAI could open source their models and it wouldn't make it any cheaper to run those models.. You still need $500k in GPUs and a boatload of electricity to serve like 3 concurrent sessions at a decent tok/ps.
There are no open source models, Chinese or otherwise that are going to be able to be run profitably and give you productivity gains comparable to a foundation model. No matter what, running LLMs is expensive and the capex required per tok/ps is only increasing, and the models are only getting more compute intensive.
The hardware market literally has to crash for this to make any sense from a profitability standpoint, and I don't see that happening, therefor prices have to go up. You can't just lose billions year after year forever. None of this makes sense to me. This is simple math but everyone is literally delusional atm.
It's a fantasy to believe that every single one of these 8 providers is serving at incredibly subsidized dumping prices 50% below cost and once that runs out suddenly you'll pay double for 1M of tokens for this model. It's incredibly competitive with Sonnet 4.5 for coding at 20% of the token price.
I encourage you to become more familiar with the market and stop overextrapolating purely based on rumored OpenAI numbers.
I'm not making any guesses, I happen to know for a fact what it costs. Please go try to sell inference and compete on price. You actually have no clue what you're talking about. I knew when I sent that response I was going to get "but Kimi!"
The numbers you stated sound off ($500k capex + electricity per 3 concurrent requests?). Especially now that the frontier has moved to ultra sparse MoE architectures. I’ve also read a couple of commodity inference providers claiming that their unit economics are profitable.
Okay, so you are claiming "every single one of those 8 providers, along with all others who don't serve openrouter but are at similar price points, are subsidizing by more than 50%".
That's an incredibly bold claim that would need quite a bit of evidence, and just waving "$500k in gpus" isn't it. Especially when individuals are reporting more than enough tps at native int4 with <$80k setups, without any of the scaling benefits that commercial inference providers have.
Imagine thinking that $80k setups to run Kimi and serve a single user session is evidence that inference providers are running at cost, or even close to it. Or that this fact is some sort of proof that token pricing will come down. All you one-shotted llm dependents said the same thing about Deepseek.
I know you need to cope because your competency is 1:1 correlated to the quality and quantity of tokens you can afford, so have fun with your Think for me SaaS while you can afford it. You have no clue the amount of engineering that goes into provide inference at scale. I wasn't even including the cost of labor.
You are literally telling me that an open source model costs $80k "at decent tok/ps (whatever that means)" to run a single session as proof something. How come people aren't dropping Anthropic for Kimi, it costs 10x less... You aren't a serious person worth engaging with.
It really is insane how far it's gone. All of the subsidization and free usage is deeply anticompetitive, and it is only a profitable decision if they can recoup all the losses. It's either a bubble and everything will crash, or within a few years once the supplier market settles, they will eventually start engaging in cartel-like behavior and ratchet up the price level to turn on the profits.
I suspect making the models more verbose is also a source of inflation. You’d expect an advanced model to nail down the problem succinctly, rather than spawning a swarm of agents that brute force something resembling an answer. Biggest scam ever.
