My first instinct was Sol > Luna > Terra, since Sol is the farthest away, then Luna, and Terra is the closest. Size was not my first instinct. Or should Terra be the best model because its closest to people, then Luna because there have been people on it, then Sol be the worst because no human has been there?
Thanks. What you described is much more what I'd expect a data warehouse process to look like. Which is driving me mad because I don't understand why there are so many steps with so many tools.
I've not gotten a straight answer. I assume it is a pet project kind of situation, or trying to justify the data warehouse project as a whole, but I really don't know the real driver to do this.
The source form is the production database, which is what the current reports pull from. The canonical form is the form that in theory all of the verticals get rolled into, but many of the nuances that our customers are used to having end up getting replaced with similar, but are not quite the same. Right now that's my biggest concern that customers are not going to get the data they need because of this canonical form.
We're talking about a few-hundred megabytes of data for all of the customers that these reports pull, but that's also for the past 15 years. We do have like 25k customers, which shrinks how much a customer can pull in even further. One last point is that we already de-normalize the report data into its own table specifically for these reports, so that's not something the data warehouse is doing for us.
I agree with your experience with QuickSight, it is exactly my experience. My preference is to continue using the reports we generate in the app, but I'm trying to wrap my head around cases where this ends up being the better direction.
I'm not one to buy these types of things so I don't want to sound like a good data point. But from the outside, I do worry that the current rate of change with LLMs might mean there could be hesitation around buying agents. Will buyers hesitate if they don't know if the next sonnet version means the agent no longer works at all or work in surprising or bad ways? I'm not sure its a real concern, but its my first thought.
Opus 4.7 was already trying hard to appear honest. Most conversations I have with it about advice or focusing an opinion often include "my honest take" or "my honest opinion".
The problem is that once I asked it "I'm thinking about A or B" twice, once with "I like A more but suspect B would be best" and a second time with them reversed. Not surprisingly, both times it chose the one I said I suspected was best as it's honest opinion.
I had never thought of it that way, but it seems very likely that Enterprise oversubscribing is in the mix. Which does tie in nicely with this change; if a few devs are using their max plan to programmatically run parts of the business that could break the oversubscribes assumption.
As far as I can tell, it seemed very clear that was the playbook for about a year now. Its been regularly assumed they're selling plans as a major loss-leader because people can "spend" thousands of dollars a months on a plan if they were charged at API rates. I think there's good evidence that even the API rates are sold at a loss.
I think its assumed in the LLM model business that the models themselves are not a good moat, the next model by another company is just as likely to be as good as the current model. So companies like Anthropic have to tighten the noose slowly to start recovering their costs. This appears to be one of those steps.
I like the concept, although I suspect it could be used more as a "lmgtfy". I would suggest that if the idea is to send this to people because they need to review their work more, the page should start with the recipe and the norms rather than then the explanation. That way people can understand why they were sent there instead of starting with "Workslop problems?". The concept didn't really click for me until I got down to the recipe. If the idea is not to link people directly to the site when you've identified workslop, then it works fine as is.