>>> We never reduce model quality due to demand, time of day, or server load. The problems our users reported were due to infrastructure bugs alone.

Just ignore the continual degradation of service day over day, long after the "infrastructure bugs" have reportedly been solved.

Oh, and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya, it's a great deal!

> We never reduce model quality due to demand, time of day, or server load

Forgive me, but as a native English speaker, this sentence says exactly one thing to me; We _do_ reduce model quality, just not for these listed reasons.

If they don't do it, they could put a full stop after the fifth word and save some ~~tokens~~ time.

Yes, Dario is responsible for some of the weaseliest of corporate weasel wording I've ever seen, and he's got some incredible competition in that arena. Those things aren't the reason, they're just strongly coincidental with the actual reason, which is to slow the burn rate and extend the runway.

Moreover the assurance re model quality is not re results quality.

LOL this doc is incredibly ironic. How does Trump feel about this part of the document?

(1) Truth-seeking

LLMs shall be truthful in responding to user prompts seeking factual information or analysis. LLMs shall prioritize historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity, and shall acknowledge uncertainty where reliable information is incomplete or contradictory.

That's not true. Some people absolutely do believe that most people do not need to and should not know the truth and that lies are justified for a greater ideal. Some ideologies like National Socialism subscribe to this concept.

It's just that when you ask someone about it who does not see truth as a fundamental ideal, they might not be honest to you.

Big coal got involved. Undoubtedly one or more billionaires in the dirty energy industry would have seen their substantial wealth dwindle to the mere single-digit billions and started paying politicians a lot of money. There's simply no other explanation because to actively kill clean energy projects that are 90% complete and is not only cleaner than coal but also now cheaper is simply illogical and irrational.

Am I? I'm just comparing the relative degree of enshittification, implicit in that is nothing will last forever, Gemini freebies included once they get their fill of training data. But I was surprised to see Anthropic used as an example of something that hasn't enshittified, considering how in less than 6 months my Claude plan went from fantastic value to constant rate limiting.

Patagonia.

That said, they are the only example I can think of.

Maybe Costco?

A key distinction here is that Hyperview is free, which makes the offline capabilities or lack thereof a more than reasonable tradeoff IMO.

Volt looks great, but $15/mo. for the basic plan, $37/mo. for the pro plan that you likely need for the ad hoc builds alone (unless you test in prod).

Except probably 99% of their profits come from oil. 99% of their infrastructure is setup for oil which has been honed and put into place over decades.

Can you imagine the cost of revamping all of that? And then they have to explain to their shareholders why their profits are a fraction of what they normally are, otherwise their stock price will sink which will affect the company in myriad ways.

There's so much to this space that I'm ignorant of, but I know enough to know that it's really not that simple.

They don't need to revamp. They have access to billions in revenue that can be put in to setting themselves up as key players in yet another industry. Many of them are doing just that. Eventually, they all probably want to dominate the battery / grid renewables industry as well. Why wouldn't they? They are uniquely positioned to do so.