This has since been the case with recent models from OpenAI vs Anthropic, seems it's a matter of their philosophies embedded into the model, much like Conway's Law.
I'm reading Proto which is about the Proto-Indo-European language family and it discusses exactly this, where the hunter gatherer nomads of PIE moved from the Caucuses to more farming oriented areas like plains they settled down and also interbred with the local farmers. But, when droughts happened and food got more scarce from farming, many of the farmers in turn became nomads again. The DNA shows this change apparently.
Unions aren't socialist, the employees don't own the means of production while engineers for example at Google literally own shares of the company and can vote. Don't confuse your screed with the literal definition of the word.
Thank you. I too am interested in the technical aspects, not how many guardrails it can hit against Fable, like, who cares? As long as it can get me (more) uncensored access without killing itself over biology or chemistry, it's a good model to me.
I can't believe the top comment is about some political reply garbage, as if that actually matters day to day for coders; in reality I want to get my work done.
It is more and more the future. No human would want to rewrite one technology to another because it is too marginal a gain. AI on the other hand does not give a shit.
We had one for SQLite (which is SQL-ite btw, not SQ-Lite which doesn't make any sense) via Turso, no wonder we see the same for Postgres. Personally I do want to see libraries be in as much memory safe languages as possible.
No, but it doesn't mean the opposite will either. Some solutions are orthogonal and in reality commenters online have no idea what to do in these sorts of business situations and therefore resort to making pithy statements.