At my company, devs were the ones pushing for the Claude subscription. Left to management, we would have only had GitHub Copilot – we already have an existing relationship with them and the tool is good enough.
If Anthropic is intent on losing the goodwill of the devs, they might not be happy with the consequences. Their product is quite commoditized at this point – the latest GPT, Gemini or GLM is just as good for most enterprise tasks.
Exactly the same for me, and I'm now ... "worried" isn't quite right, but you know what I mean, that they will back out. But to what? We had copilot before which was cheaper, and worked reasonably well with the A\ models, but I'm not even sure those will be there (Opus is no longer on my cheapest paid Copilot sub at home), and I've no doubt OpenAI will jack up their prices soon enough and/or do the "exclusivity" thing so they can only be accessed by their own clients.
> I still wonder what real value Palantir provides the US Gov.
Their "product" has always been some hacky database joins behind a web app with a dark mode interface that makes the baby brains at DOD feel like they're in a 90s hacker movie
The movements and announcements of large tech companies tend to be newsworthy, whether it's "we made a new iPhone", "our new model is so good it's dangerous!" or "we should have a draft to support new American imperialism"
I understand why your first two examples would be newsworthy – they are 1) about technical products that 2) are produced by the company that is making the announcement. But what does Palantir have to do with the draft? Isn't this comment on the same level as, I dunno, Elon Musk tweeting that families should have at least 3 kids?
The hacker aesthetic has always been largely reactionary and hyperfocused on the individual and individual freedoms. See also the politics of "generation X"
The saddest thing of our age is that "reactionary" and "individual freedom" is equated to authoritarian movements that are anything but.
The hacker aesthetic has always been anarchist in nature, until the rich Californians decided that a hacker is an entrepreneur that participates into the game of capitalism. To be fair, even the concept of libertarianism was an offshoot of anarchism, until the Americans decided that it means right-wing party politics of the rich elite. Words don't mean anything any more, any concept that can equated to its opposite if it rewards one with internet points.
I'm in complete agreement with your defense of "individual freedom". But how is "reactionary" anything but an authoritarian movement? I'd say those two are basically synonyms regardless of whether we're talking about "reactionary mass media" or the political philosophy laid out by Yarvin where he took ownership of the term. Do you have another definition in mind?
"Right wing politics dominated by the rich" is the natural endpoint of libertarianism, so that makes sense. Whether they're "real" libertarians or not, the elite techies leading the charge are people with politics like Karp, Andreessen, Musk, etc.
Libertarianism is abused by capital in the same exact way that conservatism and progressivism are - by getting primed with easy feel-good answers that are ultimately disempowering and self-defeating. In the case of libertarianism, this is so-called "right-" libertarianism that actively rejects qualitative judgements of freedom and coercion while hyper-emphasizing an axiomatic framework that can be used to justify authoritarianism as long as the logical preconditions have been met.
reply