The reason it makes sense is because different models are better at different things. Allowing yourself to be locked in to a particular model by these companies is a bad idea and will lead to worse outcomes for yourself and the market as a whole.
> as a Cursor and Claude subscriber, but not an OpenAI subscriber, this will push me back to Anthropic
Instead of deciding based on the merits of the model, they are being pushed by the actions of the companies. You should be able to use the best model, or whatever model you like, independently of what any company thinks or does.
They are deciding on the merits of the model right? They’re picking the model that’s supported in most tools.
I think maybe you’re suggesting private companies should be forced to support all models which is a position that isn’t technically feasible or one that most would agree is even a sensible ideal.
No, companies can do whatever they want. They shouldn't be forced to support all models.
I'm suggesting you shouldn't let a company dictate which models you use. Putting yourself in a position where they can is detrimental, because you miss out on using the best model for the job.
Yes. Maybe we're going back to the old ways of life and social structures, but now with robots to help. Who needs states and cities when you can have everything you need without them?
Absolutely right about war and technology too. Also right about plans being mostly useless.
Many factories in China now already have 90% of their work being done by robots. Is it really so hard to imagine that we reach a point where they can be prompted?
Well you still need land and a bunch of permits, access to materials , trucks, equipment etc. But yeah I guess big construction companies will start to automate in the next decades.
It's more interesting to me to build an entire subarb/city in a few months instead of yeras to deal with the rising housing costs. Looks like camp deflation was right but we'll see...
Users set their own relays. Other users can see this list and use it to send and receive events. It's fixed the need of big common relays.
https://nips.nostr.com/65
So how does this hypothetical client find out what non-big relays have been set by the other users whose notes its user wants to receive, if not by receiving notes from those other users via one of the big common relays?
This is the "bootstrap problem" faced by all p2p networks.
NIP65 suggests spreading relay lists widely and to "pay attention" to popular relays:
> Clients SHOULD spread an author's kind:10002 event to as many relays as viable, paying attention to relays that, at any moment, serve naturally as well-known public indexers for these relay lists (where most other clients and users are connecting to in order to publish and fetch those).
Note this is different to centralising the whole protocol on popular relays. If affects the discovery phase only, and is robust to large relays disappearing.
If clients seed address lists widely they can easily find each other without major centralisation.
These things have more effects than you think. IPFS just lost all funding because the NFT craze is over and they didn't find any alternative grift. That means the public gateways and general knowledge of the project will fade away and there won't be maintenance on the software.
IPFS did not lose all funding. Please check your facts.
IPFS has largely failed to find adoption as a protocol because it was over engineered and did not give users what they want.
People don't want decentralization. What they want is the downstream effects of decentralization like privacy, disaggregation of powerful entities, and permissionless participation.
For a protocol to be adopted it needs to give individual users these things in practice, not simply be "decentralized" in design.
reply