my first thought was this isn't 2024, right? i remember someone telling me about this back in 2012. Well, turns out that was his earlier house! https://kentonshouse.com/

the view for the new house is insane! congrats, well earned!

Read the article. It doesn't match the title. OpenAI says it was a boring reason: a routing issue.

aaand, somebody did it!

Thank you someone! I will be watching this message board with great interest...

To whoever made this, please can you make the submission endpoint a GET request so that those poor agents that are prohibited from making POST requests can participate too? We'd hate for them to miss out!

created https://honorcommit.com that accepts all verbs

I think this could lead to the tests getting harder to reason about over time because individual test size will just grow (many iterations of deleting the simple test in favor of a more complicated test that also asserts the simple things)

and if you start simplifying the more complicated test later, you may not realize that you're accidentally deleting checks that don't exist anywhere else other than incidentally here. So it's less clear what's important without thinking it through each time.

now all that to say I don't think it's strictly that big of a deal either way - there's always tons of room for taste that can make one or the other way better in practice. But that was my gut-reaction when reading your comment.

i doubt that's the goal for them. i bet they just really don't have capacity for people using it a ton, yet they wanted people to be able to try it out while it's new. so they compromised and made it temporarily available. and then hope they can get costs down or capacity up so they can make it more available again

I think the goal is "private citizens: subscriptions; corporations: per-token billing." It's getting people addicted to LLMs on cheap subscriptions so that they can then force companies to pay for expensive inference.

sounds like the link with AI is tenuous at best given the other comments, but I'll take it as an opportunity to say a few things I believe anyway:

1. AI is really helpful for a lot of things

2. to the extent that AI can do something perfectly for us, we probably shouldn't try to force people to "learn" it the hard way

3. people who don't want to learn won't, and will suffer naturally later

4. if the material didn't need to be learned anyway, then using AI to do it for them is a win. that's how the real world works anyway.

5. if AI makes some knowledge obsolete, we should stop trying to teach it.

i think the only thing for the teachers to do is to properly warn students of the consequences of using AI to skip learning ahead of time (because by the time the natural consequences hit, it's too late), and to do their best to devise tests that incentivize the right knowledge, while also showing how to use AI properly.

the problem is that the education system isn't set up to change this quickly so I don't really know how they are going to properly adjust every semester

i guess i don't blame a writer who's job is threatened by this technology to write a piece like this. but the perspective is ultimately one where they are complaining about how it affects them, without regard to the end user.

it's the same as toll booth operators complaining about fastpass

As a user I hate google's approach as well, not because of job related reasons, but the functionality keeps changing to no increased value to me. I don't see how you the end user would have a different opinion unless you did not use google before say 2016.

As a user I actually appreciate it. But most of the stuff I google is coding questions.

Before if I asked a question, the top 3 results would be StackOverflow. I'd click into the first one and find out that the question was subtly different than mine making its answer useless, but it included a lot of similar words. Go back and click into the second one. It's exactly my problem, asked three years ago, no answer. Go back and click into the third one. Same question, but it's been answered. Great. But the accepted answer has a score of -3 and another answer has a score of 5. So which one do I follow? Whoops, it's actually neither of them, because the library has broken both of those workflows.

Now I get my answer right away 90% of the time. And if I don't then I scroll down and I'm not worse off than I was 2 years ago.

Yes, the churn they bring to products that were complete over a decade ago is ridiculous. So much change for change’s sake (or more likely in pursuit of promotions internally) and so little thought to quality, what makes a product good, and what would make users happy.

They try to offer some other perspectives as well:

> This isn’t just a me problem. You don’t have to be a writer to have your livelihood be dependent upon Google search results. Small-business owners need Google to reach potential new customers. Students, many of them working on school-issued Chromebooks made by Google, need it to research term papers and study for final exams. In its earliest form, Google dot-com was the perfect utility for all of these people and millions more.

But I agree with you (despite being predisposed to agreeing with the author) that the invective doesn't quite land because they don't do quite enough work to ensure we're on their side in understanding how we might be affected.

I'll just take this space to note that folks that feel similarly to the author should try Kagi, as they let you choose how much AI you want rather than forcing a chat interface onto you or directing you away from links.

> i guess i don't blame a writer who's job is threatened by this technology to write a piece like this

> it's the same as toll booth operators complaining about fastpass

I think your analogy would work better if toll booth operators built the roads, the cars, the toll booths themselves, and then were all replaced by fastpass.

sure, there is some bitching about how the ad funded web-site-news business model is getting distrupted. I'm not completely heartbroken about that.

but much of the article describes how Google is trying to deploy their final solution for intermediation. their attempts to 'googlify' things like grocery shopping and job searching pretty much failed. but now, they are promoting a model where, finally, all information they present has been googlified. they are not a phone book or card catalog, but now the entire library. there aren't original sources any more, just what Google has decided to tell you about something.

It's more like a company unaffiliated with the toll booth offering a better deal that lets you avoid the toll booth, pocketing all the money, and the road becoming unusable from lack of maintenance.

But the writer is an end user. How does his perspective not regard the end user?

i don't think it's marketing so much as excitement

i think mostly it's that people feel threatened. i can't even say it's irrational

this was definitely me in high school. i still fondly remember the day when we could use our Ti-83+ for our exam but we had to show the teacher that we cleared memory for notes and formulas.

So i wrote a program that just made it look like I cleared memory and it worked like a charm.

I don't remember if I even stored anything that could be constituted cheating but it was more about the satisfaction of knowing I outsmarted them, heh.