extralongdivisi

The premise is fundamentally flawed.

Ask any AI/ML expert and they will tell you that the key to a well performing model is a clean dataset. The rise of AI will financially incentivize human input, and thus independent human thinking. Frontier model reliance on RAG proves this point. Assuming AI will do all the thinking for you is a recipe for financial ruin.

Two, the cost to run an AI service != the cost to use an AI service. Frontier companies cannot operate at a deficit forever. Even if their costs go down, end user prices will go up. Their profit margins will increase and history shows they will not pass those savings to the end user.

> go the extra 10 cm

Going to steal this

The generated confusion ironically supports OP's point

> I hadn't actually explained what the software would do.

I cannot tell you how many READMEs I've read that follow the pattern: "<uninformative-name> is a <buzzword> <buzzword> written in <language>." I only have some semblance of what it does after using/seeing a demo; too often one that isnt available through the README.

Long term support is not the Google way

Professionally, I'm forced to use CoPilot, which is so eager to please me that it's useless, and Claude which is fairly good at writing code but hallucinates data when I ask it to organize my notes.

Personally, I'm using Qwen, Phi, etc. to squeeze as much performance out of constrained hardware as possible. They're pretty good at searching my personal files which you mentioned in a previous comment.

edit: typos

> the best use, arguably, of an LLM is as a very fast search index for common information

I'd counter forming a rebuttal against a search result would be fairly trivial. I.e an AI summary for "are oranges poisonous" would say "Moms Against Big Citrus says oranges are poisonous, but the Association of Orange Groves says they are not." When used for search, LLMs are a source for sources instead of the source of truth itself. The user decides which source to believe instead of deciding to believe the LLM itself.

> you might be fortunate to be in a position where nobody is relying on your velocity to ship products at competitive speed.

Admittedly the biggest drawback. AI is pretty terrible at my profession (electrical engineering, regardless of recent demos that are horrendous when examined under a microscope), but the software engineers I know haven't hand written industry code in months.

You clearly do not live in an area with a large homeless population. Many libraries are effectively under-resourced homeless shelters. Yet, no requirement to have a library card to get in. Information is still open to the public.

I can walk into a library, pull a book from a shelf, sit down, and read it front to back. No library card needed. Only need one to take a book home. Completely different scenario.

Edit:clarification

> If its the difference between the information being available at all

That's the point. The solution should avoid information not being available. Requiring login will incentivize bots to create spam accounts and move the battle to a new frontier, hurting real people in the process.

Gatekeeping information is not the solution

Am i dense or is there very little concrete detail on how their agent runs the day-to-day?