You do not pay anything different for AI prompts. You should really actually try the product before you make up all these things about it.
But what you pay involves the calculated cost of using the AI, otherwise they’d be losing money if a lot of users were to make too many prompts. So it should be possible to have a lower price that didn’t give you any prompts.
I wish there was a cheaper plan that didn’t involve AI at all. Like, I don’t care to have X prompts every month. I’d like to pay just for the engine.
This is a troll’s or a teenager’s line of thinking.
Kinda reminded me back in college I had a friend who I’d describe as a genius in computer science and programming. I was always so jealous how he was so knowledgeable about everything teachers talked about to the point of correcting them sometimes (and hurting the ego of some of them, which isn’t very smart).
He was like a C++ nuts to the point of having some of his code on the Boost library (which was impressive for a 20yo), but when Rust started getting popular back then, he really got into it and quickly became an “evangelist”. For some years, everything was about Rust, if you stopped to talk to him.
I met him year later and asked if he was still working with Rust, and he said after using it for enough different use-cases, he actually started to dislike it and pointed out a lot of problems and flaws that I wouldn’t possibly remember. I think he also said the community was very toxic and was taking the language to a direction he didn’t like. I suspect nowadays he is just another fella using Lua and C++ for his personal projects.
Even if it was, there’s no way to know, people can just lie. It’s not like it will be obvious, some people might have a feeling it is (based on their experience playing with LLMs) but won’t be able to point exactly why.
Besides what other people said, one example is classes being closed by default (you need to explicitly set a keyword to make them open to extension). That was done to prevent inheriting from classes that weren’t designed to be inherited, and forcing you to use composition instead.
...so might as well say that "agent" is simply the next buzzword, since people aren't so excited with the concept of artificial intelligence any more
This is exactly the reason for the emphasis on it.
The reality is that the LLMs are impressive and nice to play with. But investors want to know where the big money will come from, and for companies, LLMs aren’t that useful in their current state, I think one of the biggest use for them is extracting information from documents with lots of text.
So “agents” are supposed to be LLMs executing actions instead of just outputting text (such as calling APIs). Which doesn’t seem like the best idea considering they’re not great at all at making decisions—despite these companies try to paint them as capable of such.
If they actually wanted quality documents for people to use, they would be advocating for Standard Ebooks or something.
Or… you know… have PDFs that aren’t pictures of handwritten text?
Yeah, none of that would be a problem if the car isn’t connected to anything (WiFi, Bluetooth etc.)
Imagine when the author hears about the “Create an app in 20 minutes with AI” tools.
This is why technically software is a liability. The less code you need, the better, since every line of code is a potential vulnerability and something to maintain, update, etc.
In a few months, macOS will not even support Intel.
That’s a bold statement.
Yes, they made it unrestricted which means they’re charging you considering you can use it a lot. That’s what I mean. Using LLMs APIs isn’t free so it has a cost embedded, which they certainly calculated, or else they’d run the risk of it being abused.