They would have to trade off building new features for refactoring. It seems they consider shipping more important, and that as long as the existing features mostly work, that’s good enough. As customers, we have to ask: do we agree? Do we want features over stability? I think the answer is yes, at least for me (and the market seems to agree). But it’s certainly a risk Anthropic is taking.
I will note that this strategy only really makes sense because Anthropic controls the compute. If open-source harnesses could also use Claude max plans, then they’d have to focus much more on stability and quality, or just build an open-source harness themselves, or probably better yet, get out of the harness-building business altogether. So they’re gambling on staying ahead of open-source models, which seems like it’s been a good bet so far, but we’ll see.
“Which side”? What other side is there in Iran? You think there’s some shadow government that can realistically topple the mullahs from within? The only way the Shah comes back is with US boots on the ground, which would be a disaster for other reasons. Until that happens this is just reckless action that makes the regime even more radical than it already is.
VENI/VIDI/VICI are easy for anyone who studied Latin (as indeed used to be common), and ARIA is similarly easy for anyone who knows about opera. Basically, the crossword is for snobs.
Sure, I agree. Kneejerk condemnation and othering is bad.
But there’s a need to balance even-handedness with a healthy skepticism of those in power. Otherwise you risk becoming an apologist. No one is saying not to do your homework or not to think critically, but we’re also saying not to come in guns blazing in defense of moneyed interests. That’s what the person who brought up the hidden agenda stuff seemed to be doing - making assumptions that favor capital without even taking the time to read the article that addressed those assumptions. That’s not even-handed, it’s biased against labor.
“I reject demonisation of the wealthy” is quite an odd thing for someone identifying as “far left” to say. But then you go on to identify as a “left liberal” - canonically not considered far left - so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.
Whether it’s worth demonizing anyone or not, we can condemn actions that hurt innocent people and we can maintain skepticism of the ultra-wealthy and their motives without “bullying”. It does sound like your principle of compassion extends a little too much towards capital and not enough towards labor.
React is hundreds of thousands of lines of code (or millions - I haven’t looked in awhile). Sure, you can start by having the LLM create a simple way to sync state across components, but in a serious project you’re going to run into edge-cases that cause the complexity of your LLM-built library to keep growing. There may come a point at which the complexity grows to such a point that the LLM itself can’t maintain the library effectively. I think the same rough argument applies to MomentJS.
Meh, sort of. Just because LLMs let you output reams of code, doesn’t mean you should use them to do that. As always, you should make the smallest diff that would accomplish your goal. Working this way, LLMs don’t really accelerate my workflow much except for work that’s truly boilerplate and for refactoring. But for the sort of small-ish changes that iterate towards product-market fit, I find I have to spend more time trying to get Claude to do what I want than just writing the code I need by hand.
That’s a little simplistic. Iranians feel, somewhat justifiably, that they and the Arab world have been pushed around by the West for over 100 years. The Jihadism we bemoan today didn’t arise in a vacuum - it is at least partially a reaction to Western interference in Middle Eastern affairs (recall how the US deposed a democratically elected Iranian leader). Israel is one such example of this Western interference, and while I obviously have the utmost sympathy for Israelis - having family there - I do think not enough Westerners are willing to see this from the Arab/Iranian PoV. There’s a reason they dislike us, and it’s not just that they’re fanatics. Negotiation would be more fruitful if we didn’t typecast our enemies as unreasoning fundamentalists.
It’s not a justification, obviously. But it is a (partial) explanation. Israel wanted to keep sweeping the Palestinian issue under the rug, and Hamas and its sponsors were not going to allow that.
Have you been to Israel? I have cousins there. When I was 14 and visited, my 19 year old cousin told me we need to kill all the Arabs because “if we exile them, they will just come back.” Do you really think (a large segment of) Israelis are less crazy than (a large segment of) Iranians?
Iran has shown itself a rational actor time and time again by not escalating against continued provocation by Israel and the US, knowing that to do so would be to enter a conflict it can’t win. That’s not the behavior of an irrational actor who’s willing to fight whatever the cost, even total annihilation (which would be what happened if Iran nuked the US/Israel).
They may be religious fanatics, but they’re not idiots.
Perhaps. But another scenario is that the population, or some not insignificant part of it, is opposed to the war and doesn’t buy the party line. We’re certainly seeing more resistance within Russia than expected. At the very least, sanctions can force leaders to expend resources quashing internal dissent rather than looking outward.
I mean, should we not be imposing economic sanctions on Iran and NK? Sure, they hurt ordinary citizens, but they’re still a strong bargaining chip.
I’d argue that a large number of ordinary citizens would be brainwashed with or without sanctions because of the degree to which dictators like Putin have subverted the media.
I think you’re still oversimplifying. NATO countries may have been involved in bloody wars, wars which were varying degrees of bad idea, but at least those wars were fought against regimes which were terrible - brutal and repressive towards their own population. Ukraine is a mostly liberal democracy, which makes invading it even harder to justify.
But sure, US citizens might not have had much say in whether the US invaded Iraq. That doesn’t mean that sanctions wouldn’t have created political pressure which could in turn have made an invasion less appealing to the neocons in power at that time. So while I’m sorry to see average Russians (or at least those opposed to the war) suffer as a result of these sanctions, I can also acknowledge that sanctions may actually put pressure on Putin to de-escalate this conflict, and also warn him of the consequences of future aggression. It’s possible Putin will ignore these sanctions, but doing so risks improving the position of his opponents within Russia.
Many people in the US were very opposed to the Iraq war (the war in Afghanistan, though stupid, had a more real precedent). It would have been good had the US suffered sanctions for invading Iraq, but sadly the geopolitical reality didn’t support that at the time. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept deeply unethical and wrongheaded behavior from a different country? (It’s also worth pointing out that the invasion of Iraq, while by no means justified, was at least targeted towards a brutal dictatorship, whereas Ukraine is a functional democracy with a free press.)
Interestingly, the political party in the US which most favors Putin - the GOP - is also the most comfortable with the US committing atrocities on foreign soil (and at home TBH). Not a coincidence if you ask me. Looks like there can be messed up people in more than one country!
You claim “this isn’t about the human suffering caused by Russia”. You sure about that? I think most people feel like a primary issue with invading another country is the amount of human suffering it causes.
I will note that this strategy only really makes sense because Anthropic controls the compute. If open-source harnesses could also use Claude max plans, then they’d have to focus much more on stability and quality, or just build an open-source harness themselves, or probably better yet, get out of the harness-building business altogether. So they’re gambling on staying ahead of open-source models, which seems like it’s been a good bet so far, but we’ll see.