benterix

> The problem I find is that no one writes C# libraries that actually do anything

Yes, because when you think about it, why should they?

MS has showed many times how unreliable and even user-hostile they can be, so the community at large is very wary of their ecosystem in spite of real advancements.

I assume 17% is roughly the percentage of people that use LLMs globally (the numbers vary between 15 and 20 percent).

It's one of these rare cases where intention is not what is the most important - the net benefit for consumers and companies outside of the USA is indisputable.

> I think we’re already very numb to AI.

Yeah, I got totally numb to AI slop. I looked at it and thought, this is surely so broken that nothing works. Came for the comments and the folks who actually had the time to invest in trying it out confirm that nothing works.

Developers with enterprise credentials sprinkled throughout their environment running anything from the Internet deserve what they get.

But I assumed the intended audience are home users with entry level macbooks/minis with 128 GB RAM where this patch actually helps them.

Really? Like what deep questions?

For me LLMs are a step forward from previous ML approaches (some of them were and still are extremely useful anyway) and for sure are very useful to many people. They are very good at generating sensible output based on input created by millions of people, but very poor at creating anything really novel.

Who would want to maintain ai-generated mess in the long run?

What for, exactly?

Let me offer an alternative: logical reasoning.

1. Increased revenue normally means increased usage. [We don't dispute that, right?]

2. Increased usage normally means increased cost.

3. There is an exception to 2: if Anthropic made a gigantic discovery and was able to reduce the cost while increasing the usage - but since it would be in their best interests, they would announce this information and brag about it for months, but they haven't (what they do is just playing the quantization game all labs do, but this is beside the point).

4. Hence, we have very solid reasons to assume their costs increased.

The biggest disadvantage of Jev is that it's a proprietary product and you need to send them your data. A bespoke solution makes much more sense in many scenarios.

> The only option on the table is to force regulation to impose open source ban

This makes zero sense.

1. Open source models are already out there and they are good. Good luck with banning their use.

2. Any ban is a local ban, the best Trump can do is to coerce its allies (whose number seems to be dwindling week by week). Meanwhile China and co. will progress anyway.

3. What about the common sense and instead of saying "agent did it" we return to the times where the person using a tool was responsible for using it in the first place? And if the vendor of the tool is unable to make it safe to use (well, they well do, but they don't want to do it as the functionality is limited), it should be accompanied by a warning with a clear explanation of who exactly is responsible.

4. There is no guarantee the next generation of models will "mature" to the point of not having these flaws; on the contrary, the evidence so far shows the opposite.

The next logical step would be to have a separate card for each Unix utility.

That could be a factor for sure, but this iOS upgrade basically broke mu iPhone as switching between apps got noticeably slower and sometimes the UI gets stuck for a second or two especially when switching between the camera and other apps. I'm so sorry I gave in and installed it.

It's not a problem at all. It's only for the things I care about and I consider important for a couple of reasons (maintaining and developing mental models etc.).