While I agree that some copyright law probably goes too far, I don't understand how you could advocate for 0 copyright? What incentive will people have to produce creative works in that case?
This is an incredibly tired argument. Look at open source software - MIT/Apache license is of course relying on copyright but the incentive has nothing to do with the government granted monopoly that copyright brings.
The main beneficiaries are and always have been large companies with big portfolios of works, not actual people doing the work. And there are lots of business models for big companies that don’t require government making up and enforcing rights and still make profits. I don’t think we should to further and drop patents too which are exclusively used to limit competition and do nothing for innovation.
The same ones they have now where music labels and publishing houses take over the copyright for their works. Starving artists will sign away their copyright if it means money.
>If the resulting software is so poor you need to hire a human specialist software engineer to come in and rewrite the vibe coded software, it defeats the entire purpose.
I don't think this is entirely true. In a lot of cases vibe coding something can be a good way to prototype something and see how users respond. Obviously don't do it for something where security is a concern, but that vibe-coded skin cancer recognition quiz that was on the front page the other day is a good example.
Exactly… back in 1975 Fred Brooks was advising programmers to “plan to throw the first version away” (The Mythical Man-Month) and it’s still true today. Just the tools to build that rapid prototype that have changed. Once it was Ruby on Rails, once it was Visual Basic 6, very often it’s still Excel macros…
Wasn't part of throwing away the first version because of all the knowledge you gain while actually building it? So that you could build it much better the second time, with much better abstractions/design? If you had AI code it the first time, you don't gain that same knowledge.
You still do from operating the software.
You see what problems users have using it, which types of problems they tackle with it.
By the end of running the software for a month you will have typically learned a boat load.
But you and the parent are both ignoring that, in the real world, prototypes constantly (in fact, nearly always) get shipped straight to production and not updated or rewritten, precisely because they solve a pressing problem, and if they solve it well they get real users right away who start bringing up new feature requests and bugs before the prototype can ever be fixed.
This was a constant pattern in software engineering even before LLMs, but LLMs are making it much worse, and I think it's very head-in-the-sand behavior to ignore that. It's akin to going "well, you can't blame the Autopilot because the person should have been fully-attentive ready to react at any millisecond". That's not how humans work, and good engineering is supposed to take real-world human behavior into consideration
I've spent a good chunk of my career fixing or rewriting messes created by human developers. A majority of startups that succeed need this at some point, whether it's because of time and resource constraints during initial development, experience and competence issues, poor choices that got baked in, or whatever.
Right now, vibe coding just means there might be a lot more of this, assuming vibe coding succeeds well enough to compete with the situations I described.
I've stopped using the word "cheap" to describe situations like this as the word has too many negative connotations. I tend towards "inexpensive", "cost-effective", or "low-cost". I find it better describes my intent to describe something as not costing much but not speaking to poor quality which I feel like the word "cheap" has come to imply.
I showed the model a picture and any text written on that picture and asked it to guess a latitude/longitude using the tool use API for structured outputs.
That was in addition to having it transcribe the hand written text and extracting location names, which was my original goal until I saw how good it was at guessing exact coordinates. It would guess within ~200km on average, even on pictures with no information written on them.
Some Chinese exporters are definitely splitting the cost of these tariffs with their American importer counterparts. While this isn't as significant as "China pays all the tariffs", it's also not "Americans pay all the tariffs".
Though, I haven't seen any analysis on how common this is, so the effect might be negligible in terms of how much "the Chinese" are paying for these tariffs.
I've come across some other comments on Chinese forums. Some importers buy products for 10 RMB from China and then sell them in the U.S. for 10 USD. Later, they use tariffs as an excuse to raise prices to 15-20 USD. They couldn't care less whether you impose 100% or even 200% tariffs – they'd still profit unless the tariffs reach 1000%.
Also, check out this link[0] some people actually don't have many alternatives either.
Why is that the case? If an item (from every manufacturer) costs $5, and there's a new tax on it, making it cost $10, why would this be split between buyer and seller? The seller needs to make a certain margin on it, and it's not like the competition can sell any cheaper, or they already would have been.
If demand is elastic, then the seller has to lower prices (and their margin), otherwise people don’t buy their stuff (because they can do without). In this situation, the seller eats the tariffs, That’s the case for nice-to-have things like luxury goods and entertainment. If the seller cannot do that, e.g. because their margins become negative, they will just stop doing business (in the US or entirely).
The other end of the spectrum is stuff people cannot do without, in which case the seller has no incentive to lower their margins because their customers don’t have a choice. Then, tariffs are entirely paid by the buyer.
In reality, everything is in between and accurately estimating how much everyone will be paying is very difficult. What we can predict with certainty is that prices can only go up, and that some businesses will fold because they cannot absorb the loss.
This isn't an inherit issue with LLMs. You just need to set up some prompts that you can default to for different use cases. For example, you could set one up that is told to only provide the function arguments, and return value.
You mean Perplexity Pro? That thing they tried and found that no one was willing to pay for cuz users say they want paid options but then jump boat to the free things always?
"Hundreds of thousands of people" are paying $20/mo for it, according to the CEO.[0] That seems like a very respectable place for such an early product to be.
There's a lot we don't know about Perplexity's costs, like the cost of supporting free users, the difference in usage between free and paying users, and whether these ads fully offset the cost of free users.
From what I've seen, it's typical for startups at this stage to be generating minimal revenue. Perplexity has raised close to $1 billion, so they likely aren't under pressure to be profitable just yet. Bringing in tens of millions in revenue annually would actually be quite a strong start.
It may sometimes seem like “no one pays for anything”, but clearly a lot of people are paying for Perplexity Pro. It’s their business, so they can run ads if they think that will help them grow, but it’s not because no one paid for the Pro tier.
I wonder if cross-examined on that claim, that he would clarify that they have hundreds of thousands of Pro customers. Something like: It’s easy to get lost in the weeds of how much Individual subscribers paid, but that is an accurate characterization of the number of Pro Perplexity subscribers.
The point is, I have a Pro Perplexity subscription for a year, because my ISP was offering year long access for free. I think it is pretty terrible. The answers when I select Claude 3.5 Sonnet as the model for Perplexity always seem incredibly stupid compared to the answers when I use Claude 3.5 Sonnet from Anthropic’s site (which I think is really good).
I like the idea of Perplexity supplying citations, but it seems more like it is parallel construction than citing how the model came up with a particular answer. And, it seems like it is tossing out superior results whenever it cannot pretend to show its work.
> I like the idea of Perplexity supplying citations, but it seems more like it is parallel construction than citing how the model came up with a particular answer.
It's an LLM, throwing whatever text the model says you'll like best. It's amazing that they can hack it to provide links, but if you are expecting it to have a "thought-line" with "traceable research sources", you are just falling for the hype.
OP has a point. Why is this being downvoted? In my neck of the woods (UK and Ireland), everyone I know using Perplexity Pro, got a free annual subscription with Revolut. Like OP, I tried it for a week and moved on.
Its citations are often bunkum and code generation abilities are very limited, compared to GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet, heck even tiny 4-bit quantized 14B local LLMs are way better at code generation (Qwen 2.5 Coder).
There’s too much choice for the consumer to charge for it. If not Perplexity then I can just use Phind, ChatGPT, or Claude for free.
Google got off the ground because they had magic sauce that made their product noticeably better. LLM-based search engines don’t have that, especially when they’re using an LLM built elsewhere.
I remember at the beginning Google had the most user friendly ads back when agressive pop-up ads were everywhere. But once they grew they changed all that.
What's up with every AI company having a $0 plan and a $20 plan? I would pay for a lot more of these tools if they were $5 (obviously with less capability than a $20 plan), but I don't use any one enough to justify nearly $300/year (post tax).
Farther up, someone else was complaining about a different tool costing $5/mo but saying they’d pay $3/mo for it.
Everyone having a $20 price point probably means that that’s the point they think the customers will pay for it. Will introducing a $5/mo tier quadruple their paid user base? My guess is no, but that a lot of the people currently paying $20 will drop to paying $5
> Isn't payment processing just single digit percents?
It is usually a fixed component + a single digit percentage. For larger payments the fixed component becomes largely irrelevant. For small payments it can eat up most of the money involved.
As a quick example, Stripe's standard price for a credit card transaction in the US is 2.9% + $0.30. For a $5 payment that's almost 10% in direct fees, which is just about low enough that this is often where saas pricing starts.
This assumes you do tax calculation yourself (or ignore it until you're big enough) and handle fraud detection yourself. If you pay Stripe for these you're paying a significantly larger fixed fee.
There's also another significant risk at such low prices: In case of a disputed payment, which can happen a long time after the payment and will likely be more frequent if you don't pay to proactively deal with fraud, Stripe will charge you a $15 dispute fee regardless of the end result.
