1) If you have the Codex desktop app installed, and you update from within the app, it replaces itself with the new chat-demoted-to-an-overlay app called "ChatGPT" and renames your existing ChatGPT app to "ChatGPT Classic."
2) If you get the new ChatGPT app and replace your current app with it, you don't get a "Classic" app and there's no way to download it.
3) They really named an app "Classic." Naming your app Classic is putting a bright red sign on it that says "this app will be abandoned soon." They might as well have called it "ChatGPT Sunset."
If this is all true, that is certainly...one way to do product management.
No, it was because they weren't supposed to be. They were fulfilling an actual need and creating value in a way that wasn't intended to be addictive. And I was a co-founder of some of those orgs and products, so it wasn't about my employer.
I know it's hard to believe that not every organization is sociopathic, because many are (the larger, the more likely to be). But not every one is.
I don't think that's actually true. Heck, from my own experience, I can definitively say it's not actually true. I've worked in several organizations where I helped create and sell products whose job was to provide value, then let people get on with their day. I wouldn't have worked at those places otherwise.
Not saying that intended addictiveness is not common, but let's not normalize corporate sociopathy.
There’s a fallacy that gets used a whole lot to justify things like this (not just with LLMs), and I see it in many of the comments here:
If it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale.
It usually goes something like: If I can make money by learning something from a web page, why does a computer making money by learning everything from everyone upset people so? It’s the same thing!
It’s like if I go to Golden Gate Park and pick one flower, I shouldn’t do that, but no one cares. But if I build a machine to automatically cut every flower in the park because I want to sell them, that’s different.
“You say I can pick one flower, but you get upset when I take a bunch. That’s inconsistent. Check and mate.”
But quantitative changes in an activity produce qualitative changes. Everyone knows this, but sometimes they seem to find it inconvenient to admit it. Not that effects of the qualitative change are always bad, but they are often different, and worth considering rather than dismissing.
Full title: “SF vibes are frenetic over the huge divide in outcomes and career uncertainty for
software engineers; over 5 years ~10K people in AI attained retirement wealth”
"Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic."
For a company of Anthropic's size, this may very well be a death sentence, even if their work has nothing to do with the military supply chain. They could have just canceled the contract, but they wanted to go full Darth Vader on them to prove a point in case anyone else thought about "negotiating" "voluntarily" with the federal government.
I have to admit, “accept this unilateral change to the contract or we will use the full power of the US government to destroy your company” is certainly a tough negotiation stance. You got that part right.
Hegseth trying to play “I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further” just shows this gang’s total lack of comprehension of second-order effects.
You can't scale up the Magic Kingdom, no. But Disney had a pattern going for a while where they opened a new Florida park every 10 years or so: 1971, 1982, 1989, 1998. That probably helped a lot. They've done some small expansions in the existing parks since then, but they're about 20 years behind in adding a new park. I think that's a huge part of the crowding issue now.
(Now Anaheim, there they're kind of hosed. No space to expand.)
Given the product judgment shown in this particular release, it doesn’t seem to be out of the question.