I understand you think Anthropic should have paid for the information it trained the models on. But im talking about all the costs to build a model. Do you think Anthropic didnt spend money to build these models? Did you not know that its actually very expensive?
Moonshot pay for access at the price point Anthropic sees fit, potentially more, since they likely had to jump through multiple hoops?
It's hard to feel sorry about the breach of their ToS, which ultimately is all Anthropic can argue, when they are constantly being sued by countless IP owners
> So the question isn’t “bots vs no bots” - it’s what kinds of automated access should exist, and under what norms.
I think it's pretty simple: if a website clearly isn't welcoming automated access, like when they set up UA filters and such, it should not be automatically. Stealth browsers that bypasses those filters are abusing the site.
No traditional media talk about this as much as it should be. No one seems to care but the always-angry, chronically online. I had no high hopes for free internet in this country but it's getting worse than I've ever imagined.
It's the decades-old problem of blue on black, which has led to interminable discussions of which exact tint of blue should be ECMA-45 blue on a terminal. Pick one, it has poor contrast with a black background. Pick another, it has poor contrast with a white background.
It still doesn't reflect the design philosophy at all, though. A wacky approximation of early MacOS that offers nonfunctional UI affordances doesn't fit my bill of No obscurantist programming languages and styles, or simple, maintainable software akin to machines that need to work under all circumstances in the far north.
I was also a little disappointed with the philosophy's goals in general, which seem to be mostly the personal preferences of a lone-wolf style open source developer, not a universal approach to software design.
When you describe my programming and design philosophy as "the personal preferences of a lone-wolf style open source developer, not a universal approach to software design", I consider that the absolute best compliment I could have ever hoped for!
A "universal" approach to software design is the problem I am addressing, not the solution. Coming up with your own philosophy of design and implementation that works for you, and hopefully works for others, is how we get better software.
I'm not arguing with that, I think; I agree with your general sentiment and apparently read many of the same books you read as well. Yet I still believe there's value in a shared understanding of what quality software is, and what ideals to strive for in its conception.
> I was also a little disappointed with the philosophy's goals in general, which seem to be mostly the personal preferences of a lone-wolf style open source developer, not a universal approach to software design.
How would a universal approach to software design be in any way appropriate for this?
I like the general concept of software that treats its users as responsible adults, in the sense of not restricting them in how they can use the software; the analogy to machines that must work in remote areas with an extreme climate and no connection to the outside world is an apt one. Rejecting complexity in favour of maintainability, allowing to reach into and modify if necessary, those things I feel could be sharpened into proper, and universal guiding principles.
Various cost-saving measures have been discussed, including a separate Assistant plan.
Again, it will be priced according to how much the market will deem fit, which is less than what it costs at the moment.