joshuak

It is also interesting to observe that your most valuable accounts in this kind of pricing model are the ones that are least used and therefore are not confronted by the limits. Heavy users canceling their accounts in frustration is a win for Anthropic not a punishment, at least a short term.

This is the problem I suspect. I think it has a negative impact on tons of users but people just curse and move on.

Thanks for your "not sure" comment. Very helpful. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought the formatting would make it more legible and scannable. I can see why that might come across as AI generated, but it isn't. I did use AI to reduce the formatting just now though. Do you find this more or less objectionable?

Olympic athletes don't exist because no one at my gym runs that fast.

You are right that typing speed isn't the bottleneck, but wrong about what AI actually accelerates. The 10x engineers aren't typing faster they're exploring 10 different architectural approaches in the time it used to take to try one, validating ideas through rapid prototyping, automating the boring parts to focus on the hard decisions.

You can't evaluate a small sample size of people who are not exploiting the benefits well and come to an accurate assessment of the utility of a new technology.

Skill is always a factor.

Agreed.

Adding black boxes on top of black boxes is not a good way to abstract complexity. Helm does nothing more than any template engine does, yet requires me to trust not only the competency of some random chart author but also that they will correctly account for how my k8s environment is configured.

When I inevitably have to debug some deployment, now I'm digging through not only the raw k8s config, but also whatever complexity Helm has added on to obfuscate that k8s config complexity.

Helm is an illusion. All it does is hide important details from you.

I would think that by comparison to image models synthetic data would be relatively easy to generate for audio model training. I’m curious then why it continues to be so difficult to build a nearly flawless audio separation model. Is synthetic data being widely used? Is it just too hard of a problem to train even with this data? I don’t have a good sense of what the most challenging aspects are of audio models.

It seems to me (at the moment) that the 'engineering' of "prompt engineering" happens at the level of taking a word prediction model AI and turning it into a Q&A AI, and the art of decomposing requests into state and behavior that can produce an A from a Q. Also the chaining of prompts, self prompting, etc.

It's functional composition that's interesting. A system of prompts. Not the phrasing of a single question, no matter how clever.

In Go that quote is literally true. If you do nothing on a new computer but download Go you can immediately build a statically linked application that can fetch from an https endpoint. There are no implied additional steps.

I don't believe this can be said of the other languages. I know that C, C++ and Rust do not include https in their standard libraries, so while they can be made to compile statically and use a library that provides https functionality, those are additional steps that must be taken by the developer, and it is the responsibility of the developer to choose the correct source and version of the https library to use. This will also include understanding and setting any additional compiler flags that the library may require, setting any optional defines or other library configuration settings and making the appropriate changes for every platform they wish to build for.

Go requires none of this.

> I'm not just taking it in isolation for no reason. If you have static linking, you basically have HTTPS by consequence.

Can you clarify what you mean by this because to me there is literally nothing about static linking that implies https as a consequence. The point about Go is centrally not that it uniquely has access to an https library.

The point is that it is included. This may not at first appear all that noteworthy, but this is a substantive quality of life improvement. The standard library not only provides a vary large set of common functionality it is packaged with the distribution, works on all the platforms supported by Go without user intervention, and is bound in lock step to the release version of the compiler.

I really hated this feature at first, but it's one of my absolute favorite things about Go now. In general Go communicates more information than other programming languages without nearly as much visual clutter. When reading code one rarely needs to check elsewhere to fully understand what is intended.

I just addressed this question more directly on your other comment.

I do not agree that it is incumbent upon a speaker to anticipate the listeners knowledge, so I do not think it is a reasonable expectation that every qualifier be included. It's simply not practical. But I do think this is an interesting conversation you bring up.

Then why not assume it is the static linking that is trivial? Isolated each item is trivial in some context, its the exclusive set that is non-trivial, or at least uncommon.

The fact https is included in the standard library means that you can give a new user a hello world tutorial that includes producing a web server. It's a huge boon to productivity in a programming language to have a default path for such libraries.

I also work in C++, and it is infuriating the amount of time that must be spent sorting out the correct libraries for all the various aspects of an application one is not inclined to write themselves. People who don't fully grok the Go ecosystem overlook this cost when they claim that you can do the same thing in some other language. What they are missing in the subtext is the fundamental quality of life improvement.

Sorry for the misattribution, my mistake. Nevertheless, the fact remains that https is a part of the standard library and one of the elements that the op finds unique about Go. It is unambiguously part of the conversation, and the ostensibly negative comment that focuses on static linking is missing the point.

But I didn't even make the assumption that I was right on that understanding. I simply asked for more detail. Which was so that either I would learn something new, or the parent would.