Sure, but also who asked? And that's because they have the compute to burn, which is conditional based on their need to use it to train the next one.
Anything else I've ever paid $200/mo for, advertised as being for professionals, had a markedly better customer experience. If you wanna be Patrick and tell your pet rock to take its time at that price, well then you're Patrick. Good job!
I'm having far more fun with Kimi and Deepseek, at lower prices, without these problems. And I don't have to follow a bunch of obnoxious shitposters to stay clued in on what the fuck is going on or what this week's excuse is.
They're especially cocky right now, they have to beat their chest and pretend like their only competition is Anthropic. They're in for a rough wake up call man. Playing it fast and loose with developer loyalty is a fantastic way to get burned when options like those exist. They are earnestly just as good and in some cases better, and check this out: nobody can take them away from you no matter where you live. If you want to rent 8 GPUs and run the open models yourself, you can do that! You can even be enterprising and sell your excess compute to your friends, or strangers. Best to figure this out before the regulatory capture starts
They've absolutely both changed. The initial version I saw didn't include max effort data points on the first chart, and the plot itself was much less favorable to Sonnet at high/xhigh relative to Opus, but the new chart shows them as closer competitors. Weird.
Besides local review via codex and Claude code, we are using GitHub Copilot with custom instructions. We just assign it as a reviewer in GitHub and a couple minutes later, the review is done. It raises a lot of issues which are valid and which I never had found. https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/tutorials/customize-code-...
no, I honestly just think it confused itself in the middle of operations. I didn't give the full log for the sake of readability but there's no trick up my sleeve, the story is what it is.
reply