Remix.run Logo
Sammi 3 hours ago

I'm a small software business owner in Europe. I have to assume my competition is willing to pay for any business advantage they can get. And so I also have to pay for the SOTA model, whatever it is.

SwellJoe 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The good news (for you and most everyone other than the current leading AI companies), the gap between the SOTA and the near-frontiers is getting smaller every week or two. The leading Chinese models are only a few months behind now (GLM 5.2 tickles the tail of GPT 5.3 or 5.4 and Opus 4.6, according to benchmarks and the vibes among heavy users who've spent some time with it), where they were a couple of years behind a year ago.

rafram 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

4.6 was released at the beginning of February, so if the Chinese models only "tickle its tail," that means they're >5 months behind.

trvz 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

> The leading Chinese models are only a few months behind now

parodysbird 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a great recipe for going out of business.

adrianmonk 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the competitive risk is real, then are choosing between supplier risk (AI model access) and competitive risk.

When there isn't a zero-risk option, the question becomes which risk is smaller.

jasondigitized an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Any competitive business will accept this risk if it gives them any type of edge no matter the duration of that edge. This is no different that using an exotic raw material.

rogerrogerr an hour ago | parent [-]

Eh, this isn’t really how businesses operate. How many businesses refuse to give devs large-spec machines? That’s very clear positive ROI.

I think it’s excessively charitable to assume businesses are uber-competent ROI-chasers. The expense people are eventually going to win on AI too, this blip of unrestricted AI budgets will be gone soon.

halfmatthalfcat 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And thus, capitalism continues to roll on. Businesses are suppose to go out of business, its a feature.

whatever120 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

they’re not supposed to, they’re just able to

teleforce 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nearly spit out my coffee, thanks for the chuckle.

w8vY7ER an hour ago | parent [-]

It’s ok to be amused, absent exaggeration. Spit takes happen in sitcoms.

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
cedws 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This thinking that every task must be stuffed into the most 'advanced' (expensive) model out there is idiotic, and it's not only you unfortunately.

At $JOB I have warned higher ups we should try to keep our expenditure under control, educate people that document slinging doesn't require Fable every time and demo the capabilities of the cheaper models, and been snubbed for it. When Fable is available once again our bill is going to be eye watering, relative to what it should be.

jdlshore 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What concrete business advantage are you getting from LLMs?

echelon 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Speed.

K0balt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This x 10 . I don’t understand how people are saying you can’t use LLMs to get crazy productivity gains. If you can’t write quality code with LLMs at ludicrous speed, you’re holding it wrong. You will have occasional bad days and regressions. But overall you’re still going to be able to 4x your progress.

cedws 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have plenty of experience with LLMs and use them daily but definitely wouldn't call generated code "quality code." Often looks like complete vomit.

satvikpendem an hour ago | parent | next [-]

If you're an enterprise (including startups), you worry about customers, not code quality. There are famously many startups that gained traction despite shit code and then eventually got around to fixing it, to whatever extent was possible, like Facebook HHVM, Stripe's Sorbet, etc.

wonnage 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

[dead]

NortySpock an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Ok, and? You can live with that if there are more important things to deal with.

I've stared at ugly LLM code, that I had just had generated, and worked well enough for my purposes. (generally, some quick recursion into a nested python dictionary in order to dig out some property -- especially for linting or quick data analysis).

And I wanted something better, sure, something a bit more readable ...but I just needed it to work well enough to recurse through a yaml file for config file linting, not be battle-hardened against every test case.

So to deal with the mess, I shoved it in a pure function, threw a few basic sanity unit tests around it, put a comment with a disclaimer of "#this is LLM generated code, it is lightly tested, do not use it for anything truly load-bearing without a lot more tests" and I moved on to something else.

Not everything has to be bulletproof.

csallen an hour ago | parent [-]

You're on Hacker News. This is a site full of developers who are convinced that "proper software engineering" is 100% of what makes a business successful, and everything and everyone else is useless. You can't just waltz in here and point out that code in business is a means to an end and expect not to get downvoted.

echelon an hour ago | parent [-]

Every bit of code written in the last 50 years is going to be meaningless.

People need to get to grips with that fast.

Distribution, relationships, processes, mindshare, marketing, and politics matter. Code is just ephemeral glue and implementation detail.

0xy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's a small minority of people who are adamantly refusing to change, such as there are in every technological revolution. Ego prevents them from even wholeheartedly trying the tool, because it would be admission they were wrong.

The opportunities available for these people are rapidly, rapidly shrinking. I believe it's possible to be a developer today who's EXCEPTIONAL and never uses AI. Most opponents are not exceptional, though, and even these opportunities are shrinking.

Most exceptional developers in my org adopted AI in their workflows and went from 10x developers to 20x developers.

If you refuse to adapt, you're going to be out of a job complaining about the kids and their newfangled technology REAL quick. You have a few years remaining, maybe less.

drdexebtjl an hour ago | parent [-]

I can’t turn 10x work into 20x work because I have to ensure the two juniors in my team who are now creating 50x work won’t merge complete garbage, reviewed by another engineer that has already given up on caring.

I can’t turn 10x work into 20x work because my Product Manager thinks changing fundamental premises of tasks I already spent two weeks on (mostly removing human blockers) is very simple. After all, when he asked Claude to update his prototype, it only took it 10 minutes.

I can’t turn 10x work into 20x work because the company dedicated entire teams to write company-wide skills for everything. They suck, but if I don’t use them, I’m not following the new “golden path for engineering”, and I lose points in my performance review.

I can, however, turn 10x work into 20x work, or even much more than that, if AI actually did what it’s promising and eliminated most of my team, the product manager, and the middle managers. Or me. I could use a break.

dwaltrip an hour ago | parent [-]

Damn, that sounds quite rough.

cjbgkagh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I wonder if the people getting 10x productivity gains are spending less time on HN and more time tending to their agents. Personally I now spend so much time productively arguing with agents that it feels like an utter waste of effort arguing with humans, if people can't see the value in LLMs by now I'm not sure what I could say to change their minds.

vhantz an hour ago | parent | next [-]

We must then assume you're not getting those 10x gains

cjbgkagh an hour ago | parent [-]

Less time, not zero time. I still argue with humans for sentimental reasons.

dboreham 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Definitely enjoying the lack of eye-rolling, being asked to explain obvious things multiple times, and stopping things being done for resume-stuffing reasons.

erikschoster an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Drawing debt

echelon 20 minutes ago | parent [-]

We'll just rebuild stuff when we get new requirements. The models will be even faster and better for the next version, anyway.

brazukadev 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

do you think your current operation and niche is so optimized that not using Fable would put you out of business? Or is this a hope that using Fable will allow you to stay in business?

cjbgkagh 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I am on track to commoditize my niche industry, and I hope I can do it before anyone else beats me to it. I'm working at panic speeds.

1over137 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nonsense. Do you buy state of the art pens, pencils, printers, paper, computers, disks, etc.? No. You buy whatever is the best value for the case at hand. That’s often not the SOTA option.

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
admax88qqq 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure but that's orthogonal.

Yes you use the right tool for the job.

But if the job requires the best intelligence you can get with an LLM, then you use that.

Taking as an assumption that the quality of your product is a function of the quality of the inference you are using: if you use an inferior model because "what if it gets export controlled again" and your competitors don't, then your competitors are likely to win.

If you don't need frontier models for you job then this is all moot, but the thread started with

> You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model

Which is silly. HN likes to roleplay bringing everythgin "business critical" in house because sometimes vendors mess up. Self host, don't use the cloud, run open models locally, built redundant supply chains in case of another covid, etc etc. Sometimes the risk is real, but most of the time the risk is rare and the cost of an interruption event is less than the cost of bringing everything in house or using lower quality vendors "just in case"

codybontecou 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Unless you have concrete evidence via evals that SOTA is actually needed, you’re just buying into the hype.