Even though these tools are showing time and time again that they have serious reliability issues, somehow people still think it is a good idea to use them for critical decisions.
Still regularly get wrong information from google’s search AI.
Really starting to wonder if common sense is ever going to come back with new tech, but I fear it is going to require something truly catastrophic to happen.
I’ve got a popcorn reserve at hand to watch the show when the massive security breaches happen and people start freaking out. And/or a lawsuit gets discovery of a company’s LLM history and it’s every bit as awful for them as we all know it will be and the rest of corporate America pumps the brakes.
These systems are borderline useless if you don’t give them dangerous levels of access to data and generate tons of juicy chat history with them. What’s coming is very predictable.
You are mistaken. ChatGPT Health [1] is a model specifically designed for health applications and was co-developed with a benchmark suite, HealthBench [2], for testing against health conditions. This study suggests that the people working on HealthBench have some concerning external validity problems.
Then Google shouldn't be using something so unreliable for anything important. Arguing that random users should know the difference between cheap and frontier models is also not compelling. It's all the same "AI" to most people.
It's a strange paradigm shift, where the tool is right and useful most of than not, but also make expensive mistakes that would have been spotted easily by an expert.
It's really the "common sense" i.e. believing things without thinking because they "sound right" or because it's what your parents told you a lot growing up or because you watched an ad saying it a hundred times that's the issue. People don't want "the truth" or uncomfortable realities; they want comfortable, easily digestible bullshit. Smooth talkers filled the role before and LLMs are filling that role now.
I feel like I am really struggling to see the issue here with pricing, it is still a very cheap subscription and it does what we need it to do. And they were one of the ones that came out better in that recent security analysis of password managers. I see a lot of people upset here and I don’t get it.
Did they need to increase the price? Honestly I don’t know, without seeing their financials it is hard to say. But I would much rather they be able to be sustainable.
It likely doesn’t help that they are facing more and more free competition from Google and Apple. I know I have been considering a switch to Apple Passwords after the recent changes to it. I doubt this will excelerate it or anything because I will still want somewhere as a secondary area incase I loose access to my apple account.
I've been a mostly happy 1Password customer with a Family plan for quite some time. This may cause me to jump ship.
My biggest issue with 1Password has been 1) how intrusive it can be in the browser, especially on mobile when it's too proactive to show its dropdown and just gets in the way of my experience. I know this is challenging because a mobile device is a small screen, but it is incredibly frustrating. 2) how bad the Safari extension. It regularly fails to load at all.
Aside from that, while you're absolutely correct - 1Password is still relatively inexpensive, let's look at the improvements thet mention:
1. Automatic saving of logins and payment details
Isn't this what 1Password has always done or am I misunderstanding?
2. Enhanced Watchtower alerts
I haven't seen any of these alerts ever help me.
3. Faster, more secure device setup
This I have noticed. It is very convenient
4. AI-powered item naming
This is weak sauce. I don't care for "AI" to help me name my logins/accounts/etc.
5. Expanded recovery options
I'm not sure what this is and how it's different than what they've always offered on a Family plan.
I was buying a train ticket on Eurostar for my mother. I filled her name as the passenger. Scrolled down and used the 1Password data I have to fill my address and billing information. I proceed and pay. Later, when checking the ticket, I see it's on my name. 1Password changed the passenger details, and since the screen is small, I did not notice.
No 100% refund from Eurostar, but lesson learned.
I'm not leaving 1Password though. It's too convenient for my family.
I’ve had it do stuff like that and it’s very annoying when it’s an issue - which it sometimes is.
That and a lack of easy way to report a login page that doesn’t work perfectly would be my top annoyances (behind a 33% increase in a subscription that was already annoying me each time it came around).
The manage to find the money to sponsor an F1 team, so I don't think the money is the issue.
Also, if they'd increase things by 5%, or did yearly 2% increases or something like that, I'd be okay with that (to cover the inflation). But the 33% increase combined with the list of features I don't care about -- that's just taking users for granted. Thankfully I didn't start using passkeys, otherwise I'd be locked within 1p without ability to export them.
> Also, if they'd increase things by 5%, or did yearly 2% increases or something like that, I'd be okay with that (to cover the inflation). But the 33% increase combined with the list of features I don't care about -- that's just taking users for granted
The price has been unchanged at least as far back as mid 2018. According to the inflation calculator at bls.gov [1] inflation over those 8 years was 31%.
To be honest I'm mostly fine with the price increase (it hasn't been adjusted for inflation in ages), the thing I do take issue with is that for over a year now (with the 'upgrade' to a new web interface) you can't easily create a password etc. anymore straight from the browser extension.
You click the button in the browser, choose what to create 'I want to create a password (or a note, or whatever)' and then get redirected to their web-app and be presented with a pop-up asking what you want to create (I just told you, didn't I?)
I get it, when you move to a new web-app some things can break. But after using stored passwords creating new ones is pretty much the only other thing you do in the app, it seems to be core functionality that's been broken for over a year now, it's kinda madness tbh.
Edit: To be fair they offered a 'solution' when I reported it: "Don't use the web-app, install our desktop app instead."
In a world where everything is increasing in prices and salaries aren't keeping pace, you might be able to see it if you imagine what life was like making much less money.
1Password, like other subscriptions, becomes something for the middle class and up, not for the masses.
> I will still want somewhere as a secondary area incase I loose access to my apple account
I'm quite content with Apple's Password app but I pay for 1Password only for the peace of mind of having a backup in case Apple ever locks my account. I will suck it up and pay the higher price.
Part of my migration plan from 1Password to Apple Passwords is making sure I have all the account recovery options possible.
I had risks with 1Password as well. If my house were to burn down, and my phone was also inside, I’d lose it all. I have offsite backups, but I need 1Password to get into them.
In China the median hourly wage is somewhere between 4 and 6 USD, whereas in India where most employment is ‘informal’ estimates of the median wage vary from about 50 cents to 1 USD an hour.
So to cover those twelve dollars, the average Chinese worker will have to work three to four more hours a year just to have the same functionality, whereas the Indian average worker will have to work twelve to 24 more hours a year.
Why did I see the headline and my first thought was the “Scientific Method” episode of Voyager.
That being said, I am curious what the use case is. It mentions data storage but the QR code is not really storing data (ok it is storing something obviously but not in the traditional sense).
> This is, plain and simple, a tie-in sale of claude code. I am particularly amused by people accepting it as "fair" because in Brazil this is an illegal practice
I am very curious what is particularly illegal about this. On the sales page nowhere do they actually talk about the API https://claude.com/pricing
Now we all know obviously the API is being used because that is how things work, but you are not actually paying a subscription for the API. You are paying for access to Claude Code.
Is it also illegal that if you pay for Playstation Plus that you can't play those games on an Xbox?
Is it illegal that you can't use third party netflix apps?
I really don't want to defend and AI company here but this is perfectly normal. In no other situation would we expect access to the API, the only reason this is considered different is because they also have a different service that gives access to the API. But that is irrelevant.
It's basically the difference between pro-market capitalism and pro-business capitalism. The value to the society comes from competition in the market and from the businesses' ability to choose freely how they do business. When those two goals are in conflict, which one should be prioritized?
Anthropic provides an API third-party clients can use. The pro-market position is that the API must be available at every pricing tier, as the benefits from increased competition outweigh the imposed restrictions to business practices. The pro-business position is that Anthropic must be allowed to choose which tiers can use the API, as the benefits from increased freedom outweigh the reduced competition in the market.
So if Claude code didn’t communicate with Anthropic’s server using a well defined public api but some obscure undocumented binary format it would be fine?
Or should every app/service be required to expose documented APIs?
The immediate pro-market position is that if third-party clients are allowed / possible, Anthropic should be allowed to favor its own clients with lower prices.
But the position can go further if the service in question can be considered infrastructure. For example, a company that owns a mobile network may be required to let virtual operators use their infrastructure for a reasonable price. And a company owning a power grid may be required to become a neutral infrastructure provider that is not allowed to generate/sell power.
Anthropic is neither a monopoly nor has a dominant market position. Generally standards applied to companies like that are very different due to good reason.
Like I mentioned somewhere else I can see why some people think they are entitled to do this and I also fully understand wanting to do it from a cost standpoint.
While I do personally disagree with thinking that you should be able to do this when it was never sold in that way, at the end of the day as a customer you can choose if you want to use the product in the way that they are saying or use something else if you don’t want to support that model.
However the person I was responding too brought up legality which is a very different discussion.
Imagine if video service came with a free TV that watched you, and was really opinionated about what you watch, and you could only watch your videos on the creeper TV.
Then I would not use it because it does not work the way I want it to work...
But if that is the service they are making and they are clear about what it is when you sign up... That does not make it illegal.
I can see why people think they should be entitled to do this, but it does not align with how they are selling the service or how many other companies sell services. In most situations you don't get unlimited access to the individual components of how a service works (the API), you are expected to use the service (in this case Claude Code) directly.
"Both parties are okay with the terms" is far from being sufficient to make something "legal".
Tie-in sales between software and services is not different from price dumping. If any of the Big Tech corporations were from any country that is not the US, the FTC would be doing anything in their power to stop them.
> Tie-in sales between software and services is not different from price dumping.
I disagree, in many cases what you are specifically paying for is the combination of the software and the service that are designed to work together. And in many cases do not work independent of eachother.
There are countless cases of this, that what you are paying for is a thing that is made up of a piece of software and a serverside component. MMO's (and gaming in general) being a major example of this, but so are many of the apps I pay for subscriptions for on my phone.
The actual technical implementation of how it works is irrelevant when it is clear what it is you are paying for.
> "Both parties are okay with the terms" is far from being sufficient to make something "legal".
True but the opposite is also true, just because you don't like the terms it does not make it illegal.
> in many cases what you are specifically paying for is the combination of the software and the service that are designed to work together
And in many cases like Claude Code and the Anthropic models, they can and do work perfectly independently.
> True but the opposite is also true, just because you don't like the terms it does not make it illegal.
This is not me "not liking it". Like I said somewhere else in this thread: these types of tie-in are illegal in Brazil. This practice is clearly not done to favor the consumer. You can bet that if the US was anything closer to a functional democracy and the laws were not written by lobbyists, this would be illegal in the US as well.
Are MMO’s illegal in Brazil? Is PlayStation Plus illegal in Brazil? Is Spotify, Apple Music, etc etc etc also illegal in Brazil?
It would be ridiculous to argue that I could pay for a subscription to World of Warcraft and make my own third party client to play the game with. (Obviously you are free to argue it all you want but I would be very surprised if this was actually illegal).
> And in many cases like Claude Code and the Anthropic models, they can and do work perfectly independently.
Unless I am mistaken Claude Code does not have a local model built into it, so it requires a server side component to work?
As far as the Anthropic models, yes like many other services they ALSO have a public API that is separate from the subscription that you are paying for.
The critical difference here being that in the subscription it is very clear that you are paying for “Claude Code” which is a combination of an application and a server side component. It makes no claims about API usage as part of your subscription, again the technical implementation of the service you are actually paying for “Claude Code” is irrelevant.
When it comes to “Claude Code” for all that we should care about, again given that “Claude Code” is what you are paying for, they could be sending the information to Gemini or or a human looks at it. Because it’s irrelevant to the end user when it comes to the technical implementation since you are not being granted access to any other parts of the system directly.
"Tie-in sale": the business practice where a seller conditions the sale of one product (the tying good) on the buyer’s agreement to purchase a different product (the tied good).
The examples you are giving are not "tie-in" sales because the service from Playstation Plus, Spotify, Apple Music, etc is the distribution of digital goods.
> Unless I am mistaken Claude Code does not have a local model built into it, so it requires a server side component to work?
Which part are you not understanding?
I don't care about Claude Code. I do not want it and do not need it. All I care about is the access to the models through the client that I was already using!
> When it comes to “Claude Code” for all that we should care about, again given that “Claude Code” is what you are paying for.
No, it is not! I paid for Claude Pro. Claude != Claude Code.
> "Tie-in sale": the business practice where a seller conditions the sale of one product (the tying good) on the buyer’s agreement to purchase a different product (the tied good)
I will keep my response to this part in particular limited because I have limited understanding of this law. However based on doing a little bit of searching around the law is not as cut and dry as you are presenting it to be. It is possible that Claude code would fall under being fine under that law or no one has gone after them. I honestly don’t know and I don’t feel like having an argument that it is highly likely both of us don’t fully understand the law.
That being said I do question how exactly “Claude code” differs from those services as a digital good.
> I don't care about Claude Code. I do not want it and do not need it. All I care about is the access to the models through the client that I was already using!
OK! That is not what you’re paying for as part of Claude Pro, end of story. You are not paying for the API. It is no different that the people that have a free plan and can only chat through the web and the app also don’t get access to the API even though it is obviously using an API to access those endpoints as well.
Or are you also going to argue that free users should have access to the API because they are already using them in the browser.
> No, it is not! I paid for Claude Pro. Claude != Claude Code.
Claude Code is one of the features you are paying for as part of Claude Pro so yes in a way you are paying for it. And again not on that list is the API.
Claude Pro = claude.ai, and they made no changes to that arrangement. Both claude.ai and Claude Pro are products built on top of the Claude API. You are free to buy access to the Claude API itself, with or without the other two, but the pricing is different because the price of claude.ai and Claude Code includes the API charges they incur.
> but the pricing is different because the price of claude.ai and Claude Code includes the API charges they incur.
If that was true, then getting equivalent usage of the API without claude.ai and Claude Code should cost less, not more.
You can try to find all sorts of explanations for it, at the end of the day is quite simple: they are subsidizing one product in order to grow the market share, and they are doing it at a loss now, because they believe they will make up for it later. I understand the reasoning from a business point of view, but this doesn't mean they are entitled to their profits. I do not understand people that think we simply accept their premise and assume they can screw us over just because they asked and put it on a piece of paper.
We don't know if, on average, paying API prices for Claude Code is cheaper or not, so we don't know if they're operating it at a "loss". That math doesn't make sense in any case since it would be a "loss" based on their own external prices. The entire company is operating at a loss, regardless.
In any case, the point is it's not tying; you're free to choose any combination of products.
> n any case, the point is it's not tying; you're free to choose any combination of products.
These products can function independently, and the acquisition at a heavy discouont for one of them is conditional on the acquisition of the other. It definitely is a tie-in sale.
- It was possible to do it.
- OpenCode did not break any security protocol in order to integrate with them.
- OAuth is *precisely* a system to let third-party applications use their resources.
It's not what they wanted, but it's not my problem. The fact that I was a customer does not mean that I need to protective of their profits.
> (from their business perspective)
So what?!
Basically, they set up an strategy they thought it was going to work in their favor (offer a subsidized service to try to lock in customers), someone else found a way to turn things around and you believe that we should be okay with this?!
Honestly, I do not understand why so many people here think it is fine to let these huge corporations run the same exploitation playbook over and over again. Basically they set up a mouse trap full of cheese and now that the mice found a way to enjoy the cheese without getting their necks broken, they are crying about it?
You'd have to point me to an authoritative source on that (explicitly saying users are allowed to use their models via private APIs in apps of the user's choosing). If something isn't explicitly provided in the contract, then it can be changed at any point in any way without notice.
Honestly, I'm not big on capitalism in general, but I don't understand why people should expect companies to provide things exactly the way they want at exactly the prices they would like to be charged (if at all). That's just not how the world/system works, or should, especially given there are so many alternatives available. If one doesn't like what's happening with some service, then let the wallet do the talking and move to another. Emigration is a far more effective message than complaining.
> I don't understand why people should expect companies to provide things exactly the way they want at exactly the prices they would like to be charged
This is a gross misrepresentation of my argument.
I wouldn't be complaining at all if they went up and said "sorry, we are not going to subsidize anyone anymore, so the prices are going up", and I wouldn't be complaining if they came up and said "sorry, using a third party client incurs an extra cost of on our side, so if you want to use that you'd have to pay extra".
What I am against is the anti-competitive practice of price discrimination and the tie-in sale of a service. If they are going to play this game, then they better be ready for the case the strategy backfires. Otherwise it's just a game of "heads I win, tails you lose" where they always get to make up the rules.
> Emigration is a far more effective message than complaining.
Why not both? I cancelled my Pro subscription today. I will stick with just Ollama cloud.
It's not tie-in. They give users 2 choices: a) use their service via their public API, with the client(s) of their choice, at the regular price point; b) use the apps they provide, which use a private API, at a discounted price point. The apps are technically negative value for them from a purely upfront cost perspective as their use trigger these discounts and they're free by themselves.
Good on you re that cancel. May you find greener grass elsewhere.
> They give users 2 choices: a) use their service via their public API, with the client(s) of their choice, at the regular price point; b) use the apps they provide, which use a private API, at a discounted price point.
There was a third choice, which was better than both of the ones presented: use any other client that can talk with our API, at whatever usage rate they deemed acceptable. If the "private API" was accessible via OAuth, then it's hardly "private".
We can argue all day, when I signed up there was nothing saying that access was exclusive via the tools they provided. They changed the rules not because it was costing them more (or even if does, they are losing money on Pro customers anyway so arguing about that is silly) but because they opened themselves for some valid and fair competition.
There was no third choice if they didn't explicitly state that there was.
> If the "private API" was accessible via OAuth, then it's hardly "private".
If you invite people on your porch for a party, and someone finds that you left the house key under the mat and went off to restock, then it's hardly "private". It's perfectly fine for whomever feels like to take the party indoors without your permission. Pretty much what you're saying, reframed, but I seriously doubt you'd agree to random people entering parts of yours premises to which you didn't explicitly invite them.
Try not making it sound like the company is doing me a favor by letting me access the thing I was paying for. I wasn't "invited to a party", I was sold on an agreement that by paying a guaranteed monthly fee I could have access to the model at a rate that was lower than the pay-as-you-go rate from the API.
The primary offering is access to the models. That's what the subscription is about. They can try as hard as they want to market it as Claude being the product and access to the model being an ancillary service, but to me this is just marketing bs. No one is signing-up for Claude because their website is nicer, or because of Claude Code.
> I was sold on an agreement that by paying a guaranteed monthly fee I could have access to the model at a rate that was lower than the pay-as-you-go rate from the API
Yes, that agreement is there, with the condition that their app is used. That's option B. And I'd think it fairly obvious that if one has to go to extraordinary lengths to gain access, like finding a key under a mat, or needing to login with an official client to gain access to a token for an unofficial client, then - implicitly - it's highly unlikely that that method of access is part of the agreement. And Anthropic has now made it explicitly clear that no, that access method is not part of the agreement.
Nope, there's no tie-in sale[0] as you do not pay for the apps. And particularly, there's no real competition angle[1] as the market is loaded with LLM service providers, not to mention downloadable options.
There's a reason in this particular case why the particular APIs aren't documented: they aren't intended for public use. And they've made it crystal clear, so all you have to do now is take your wallet somewhere that offers the access you desire. You have no case here.
> as the market is loaded with LLM service providers
The LLMs are not commodities. The program that interfaces with them are.
> they aren't intended for public use.
It was available at first, it made possible for people to use the LLM model without having to use their specific CLI tool. It's a bait-and-switch.
> You have no case here.
I don't need to have a legal case here to keep thinking it's a morally dsgusting practice. What I don't understand is: why do you keep defending it? Is there something in it for you, or are you just trying to rationalize your way into acceptance of their terms?
They're commodities to an appreciable extent. They all do generally the same thing, with the differing factor being output quality.
People can still use their model without using their CLI. Use the API that they've provided for such. They didn't break the agreement that they made; they clarified the terms of their existing agreement.
There's nothing morally disgusting here. They're providing a service that they've poured a lot of effort into, in a way that's (hopefully) sustainable while being valuable to users. There's significant cost involved, which must be footed by those who value and use the service. They found a way to offer a discount for some of that cost, providing even greater value, but it has a condition which is possibly directly connected to their ability to provide that discount. And you want to benefit from that discount and avoid that condition.
I have no horses here; heck I wish they could offer it all completely free. But the reality is that there's ongoing cost to them in research, hardware, electricity, etc that has to be paid. And unlike many other large companies out there, they're providing something seriously valuable (you wouldn't be complaining so passionately if it wasn't), and they haven't enshittified it (unlike what the other large player is increasingly doing, but that's actually also understandable to a point). What I see here is you - as in all who want discount without condition - acting in a way that, if allowed, will very likely lead to the detriment of the service, which I definitely don't want to happen as that'll leave the market worse off. If you like the value so much that you find it next to impossible to stay away, then you should be happily following their agreement to the letter, and lean toward paying the full amount to help ensure their continued sustainability. It's well worth it.
Could you clarify exactly what you think is an illegal tie-in? Because it seems like what you are upset about is literally the opposite -- Anthropic unbundling their offerings so you aren't required to buy the ability to offer third party access when you purchase the ability to use Claude code and their other models. Unless I really misunderstand you, your complaint is literally thaf
The laws prohibiting tie-ins don't make it illegal to sell two products that work well together. That's literally what the laws are designed to make you do -- seperate products into seperate pieces. The problem tie-in laws were designed to combat was situations like Microsoft making a popular OS then making a mediocre spreadsheet program and pushing the cost of that spreadsheet program into the cost of buying the OS. That way consumers would go "well it's expensive but I get excel with it so it's ok" and even if someone else made a slightly better spreadsheet they didn't have the chance to convince users because they had to buy it all as one package.
Anthropic would be doing something much closer to that if they did what you wanted. They'd be saying: hey we have this neat Claude code thing you all want to use but you can't buy that without also purchasing third party access. Now some company offering a cheaper/better third party usage product doesn't get the chance to convince you because anthropic forced you to buy that just to get claude code.
Ultimately this change unbundled products the opposite of a tie-in. What is upsetting about it is that it no longer feels to you like you are getting a good deal because you now have to fork over a bunch more cash to keep getting what you want. But that's not illegal, that's just not offering good value for money.
Look at it this way: the service that you're accessing is really a (primarily desired) side-effect of the software. So re subscriptions, what they're actually providing are the apps (web, desktop, etc), and the apps use their service to aid the fulfillment of their functionality. Those wanting direct access to the internal service can get an API key for that purpose. That's just how their product offering is structured.
The torrents are coming directly from Anna's Archive torrents list generator, which suggests their torrents based on how rare their content is. There's currently 177TB of data that is only seeded by 4 computers around the world, which I personally find worrisome.
People seem to be very concerned, but putting aside the legal risks (which I accept - don't use this if you're in one of the ~10 countries it could get you in troubles for), I don't really get it. The idea is to support Anna's Archive. If you do not trust the project, why support it? Levin is meant for people that want to support Anna's Archive, and my assumption was that this implies some kind of trust in their torrents.
Edit: just adding that "finding the list of what you want to seed and vetting that list yourself" is extremely not practical and not won't really help anyone. Torrents work because we're all seeding the same torrents. If I'd seed a torrent of my 5 favorite books and you seed a torrent of your 5 books, our torrents will forever have 1 seeder each. And good luck manually vetting all the files in one AA torrent. I am planning to let people manually add/remove torrents from Levin, but I highly suspect it will be used by very, very few.
Please, go to https://annas-archive.li/torrents and check their torrent list generator. It will recommend you torrent files that need help seeding. Pick one, and see for yourself that it's practically impossible to audit its content. I just checked and the average torrent size is around 125GB. With a typical file in it being around 0.5mb, you're looking at auditing 250,000 files. And the filenames are all hashes.
I would honestly love to know what you see as an alternative to trust here; an alternative that can still be helpful.
If you are seriously this upset about such a tool, why don't you just avoid using it? Instead of commending the author for their work you're trying to tear them down and prove them wrong in every reply. Why not just move on with your day and avoid using it?
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was being dismissive. FWIW, people suggested that I'll add some information to the README and even implement some kind of a "country-check" to warn the user, and I think these are all great ideas. I still don't think that auditing AA torrent files make much sense however.
As my first comment mentioned, the project is WIP. I posted it here because it seemed relevant, but if you're looking for bugs, I'm sure you'll find them both in the code and in the README. I assumed that people realise that a combination of torrenting + AA requires some precautions, but if your point is that I can make it clearer - I don't disagree.
CSAM is not something to scare people away. In P2P networks like Perfect Dark there are TBs of CSAM sitting in everyone's disks and we just get along with them.
Not everyone that interacts with a service is interacting with it directly? How is this a serious question.
A thing called API’s exist and if your users rely on it but your not interacting with it directly yourself, seeing this could save you time to investigate an issue.
Or you are using it yourself and seeing this post confirms it is not just you having an issue and you can move on with your day.
This has nothing to do with it being AI and it being a large service. It is the same with posts about an Azure or AWS.
There has to be some sort of automation making these issues, to many of them are identical but posted by different people.
Also love how many have the “I searched for issues” checked which is clearly a lie.
Does Claude code make issue reports automatically? (And then how exactly would it be doing that if Anthropic was down when the use of LLM in the report is obvious )
I will say that 11 LTSC is also a solid option. I run it myself and I don’t have any issues with it, and it lacks a lot of the crap that Microsoft has been trying to shove in.
At some point there might be compatibility issues with Windows 10 (especially with it now being EOL) so if your a gamer 11 LTSC might be the better choice.
The downstream effects of this are extremely concerning. We have already seen the damage caused by human written research that was later retracted like the “research” on vaccines causing autism.
As we get more and more papers that may be citing information that was originally hallucinated in the first place we have a major reliability issue here. What is worse is people that did not use AI in the first place will be caught in the crosshairs since they will be referencing incorrect information.
There needs to be a serious amount of education done on what these tools can and cannot do and importantly where they fail. Too many people see these tools as magic since that is what the big companies are pushing them as.
Other than that we need to put in actual repercussions for publishing work created by an LLM without validating it (or just say you can’t in the first place but I guess that ship has sailed) or it will just keep happening. We can’t just ignore it and hope it won’t be a problem.
And yes, humans can make mistakes too. The difference is accountability and the ability to actually be unsure about something so you question yourself to validate.
> It's quite indiscriminate in Software, for sure, I feel like people don't care whether you used an AI to write your code as long as it works.
I don't think that is really the case.
We are seeing pushback on games developed using AI. Communities like /r/selfhosted is very much pushing back against AI slop code.
While right now it seems like for the most part the concern is from more technical people, we are seeing issues of vibe coded applications shipping bugs because the quality is poor (just look at the bugs shipped in Claude Code).
I think we will be getting to a point of people questioning the quality of the application they are using and whether or not a human was actually involved if bugs start shipping more often.
Is the backlash among gamers to AI code or to AI-made visuals / assets, which are often kind of sloppy or nonsensical if looked at closely? I had only heard about the latter.
> We are seeing pushback on games developed using AI.
Yes, people whine but still buy the games, as long as they're fun. Expressed preference of "AI is always bad" vs revealed preference of "It's fine if the product is still good."
One of the things I find interesting as well, is that among many of my friends outside the western world, they typically see: "knowing how something is made" as a western cultural thing. Many of them adopt a "why do you care how it's made, you are a not a manufacturer" type of response. Which i find very interesting.
They still care about the quality of the product, just not the process as much. Not sure if this the case for all people or a generalization. Just something I noticed.
Still regularly get wrong information from google’s search AI.
Really starting to wonder if common sense is ever going to come back with new tech, but I fear it is going to require something truly catastrophic to happen.
reply