FinnKuhn

> I don't _need_ the battery life and still prefer to run Linux so the tradeoff is worth it to me, but for most users it's pretty hard to not recommend a Macbook.

The thing is I never had a Mac(Book) before, but the hardware at the time was just so much ahead of anything else that I didn't mind that limitation. At least for what I bought it any OS (Windows/MacOS/Linux) would have been totally fine.

It's a console exclusive as of now and if/when it releases for computers at least I would rather play it on a dedicated Gaming PC and not a Laptop.

To me it looks like farmers or biologists that use a MacBook because it is durable and has excellent battery life (or at least that seems to be the message when you read the rest of the announcement).

I still have the original M1 Pro (thankfully with enough disk space) and I still don't really see a reason to upgrade. Since the M1 all these MacBooks are more than powerful enough for anything I might want to do and the original battery life was so good an upgrade would harldy be worth it.

> For a while, Claude was even telling people to go post projects to Reddit as a way to get users. They would copy and paste the suggested post into the Reddit.

I don't know which LLM's are still doing it, but the amount of Posts I remove from r/selfhosted that still have the AI's markdown formatting included is astonishing. At least a few of them per day.

When I think of games developed by a single developer I always have to think of Chris Sawyer, who initially created two of my favorite games, Rollercoaster Tycoon and Transport Tycoon Deluxe, with both being written almost entirely in assembly.

For consulting they don't need to start a new company. If they eat part of that market it would be with their current products where someone uses AI instead of hiring a consulting company. So a similar approach to what happened with translation.

For sales I'm sorry, but I don't think sales companies exist? Sales is usually just a part of another company. Some of those employees might be made redundant as AI products complete part of their work, but that would also happen through OpenAI's or Anthropic's products.

So for both of those I don't see what kind of company they could spin off (excluding the example of a company that does AI implementations as I mentioned that one in my initial comment) that would compete with an existing company. For all of these things offering a product that allows existing companies to replace employees sounds like the more scalable, profitable and flexible strategy.

>Say OpenAI builds GPT-11 and they realize it can do 95% of their clients work. Why not hire away key people from the client or the client's competitors and start eating into their market share?

Can you give me an example where this would make sense, because I just don't see e.g. OpenAI starting a grocery store chain or Anthropic building a wind turbine manufacturing company.

What I can see is that some company's products become useless, e.g. translation tools, as it is something that you can just do within ChatGPT or Claude.

> The coincidence is that they took the correct path out of “every possible one” exactly after one of their users took it.

From what I read online that researcher also used a lot of AI to find this approach, so it might just be the one that is the easiest to find for AI agents and the timing would then only be caused by them working on it around the same time.

> Anthropic and openAI just announced they’re spinning out competitors to their biggest customers… right after ingesting all of their IP and contracts. Do the math.

Do you have any links to further reading on this. I haven't read anything like this and also couldn't find anything in their newsrooms. The only thing I read is that they want to have more people work on implementations.

It shows "Streets © Overture / OpenStreetMap · Elevation USGS 3DEP" in the bottom right.

Based on historical developments the cost of compute will go down again eventually, decreasing the cost of training AI models of the same quality as today even further. That part is what I would be the most certain about.

My personal theory is (assuming there really is no moat) whoever starts the latest with developing AI models might actually win as they should be able to develop a competitive product with significant less resources and initial investment resulting in a higher ROI. AI might even become a commodity.