Assuming the actual price for many user is closer to 1k USD/mth than to 200 USD/mth, and the actual price is closer to their target margin to be a viable business, they're practically subsidising usage after 200 USD/mth. Together with other AI-TECH doing the same, they fabricate a false sense of "AI is capable AND affordable", which imo is evil.
As the Wikipedia page calls out, predatory pricing is generally in the context of a dominant firm throwing their weight around to dominate the market. You could make this case against large incumbents like Microsoft and Google, but Anthropic is actually the upstart here.
In any case, all this depends on how you define the "market", and the entire market for AI-assisted coding is very nascent and fast-moving to make any reliable calls about dominance at this point.
It's really impressive how powerful and efficient it has become. However, I find it so much more difficult to build mental model of it. I've been struggling with atomic and r/w barrier as there are sooo many ways the instructions could've been executed (or not executed!).
It's a consequence of keeping our general purpose single threaded programming model the same for five decades.
It has it's merits, but the underlying hardware has changed.
Intel tried to push this responsibility to the compiler with Itanium but that failed catastrophicically, so we're back to the CPU pretending it's 1985.
I doubt it's anywhere near million. Non-zero? Sure.
But even for those scenario where "AI" helps, I still believe there exists other alternatives that doesn't consume unreasonable amount of energy and are not megacorp controlled blackbox. Usually it's just better tooling, and/or a change in the process.
The reason why "AI" is simply bad is way beyond malicious abuse of these stochastic models, thus the analogy of banning phone doesn't actually work.
On the creative side, I feel like punk act like this, fighting back against all these throat-shoving and gaslighting, is pretty artistic.
> On the creative side, I feel like punk act like this, fighting back against all these throat-shoving and gaslighting, is pretty artistic.
Joining a moral panic mob isn't punk; it's just irrationality. The "AI is evil" crowd is just as idiotic as the "AI will do everything perfectly" crowd. They're married to ideology and are more than willing to bury themselves alive for it.
Making a minor-to-moderate sacrifice of convenience/money so that your actions align with your ideology and beliefs is extremely common human behavior. Organic food. Clothes made in the US instead of a sweatshop. Following a religion's customs e.g. Sabbath.
There are plenty of good reasons to not want to use gen AI (and many stupid ones as well). If someone wants to market their product that way, who cares
Less competent PMs are shoving capital A and capital I everywhere in panic mode, getting even more anxious as every failure exposes and deplatforms them even more.
They couldve spent time to understand the problem domain and think more, if theyre not already busy fabricating a resume to sneak into The Actual Big Tech.
I feel like plagiarism is an appropriate analogy. Student can always argue they still learn something out of it and yada yada, and there's probably some truth in it. However, we still principally reject it in a pretty binary manner. I believe the same reason applies to LLM artifacts too, or at least spiritually.
reply