Some 20 years ago, the telecommunications sector in Germany was liberalized. Many telephone card providers entered what had previously been a barely competitive market. They advertised their products with aggressive claims like: “Buy our €10 top-up card and get 660 minutes to destination X.”
For the first few weeks, they would actually provide those 660 minutes to establish trust in their cards. But after a while, they would quietly start reducing the number of minutes on subsequent top-ups—say, from 660 minutes down to only 300. They wouldn’t do this for every card, so it was difficult to prove. Instead, they relied on averages across their customer base to make the economics work.
Lately, I’ve found myself wondering whether something similar may be happening with frontier AI models. Companies launch with an exceptionally strong model and generous compute limits to build adoption. Once the model is established as a market leader, the incentives change, and users may start perceiving the service as becoming more constrained or less capable over time.
I don’t have evidence that this is what’s happening with Anthropic—or with any other AI company. It’s simply a pattern that the current situation reminds me of.
Which prompt, though? Just the initial one, or the entire conversation? During a project you’ll prompt the agent dozens of times. Are all of those prompts considered the source?
For those who moved away from GitHub: do you miss the social/discovery side of it?
I mean things like comments on issues/PRs, stars, followers, finding existing repos, seeing which projects are popular, and getting drive-by contributions.
Or does that matter less than I imagine once you self-host and mirror public repos back to GitHub/Codeberg?
I used to love browsing GitHub Explore Trending but in the last two years it is almost exclusively AI apps that are slight improvement on the previous trending page of AI apps.
GitHub explore could be way more interesting with a simple filter algorithm.
Wouldn’t a modern app like iA Wtiter or any other distraction free full screen text based writer be just as good? Or why does WordStar still have his fanbase decades later?
What is the incentive of the U.S. government? Is it to prevent adversaries from accessing this powerful technology? Because of security concerns? Or is there a fear that European, Asian, Latin American, and other companies could use it to build competitive products? What happened to free trade? What about all of humanity advancing and making progress?
Are GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.8 the last models we're going te be allowed to use in Europe? Is there going to be a cut, and we're only be allowed to use less capabale models outside of the US?
I mean, if they deem Fable 5 to powerful to share with the rest of the world, what's left for us?
> All silicon shares the same process. CPU, GPU, SSD, etc
No, no they don't. CPUs and GPUs do, broadly, but SSDs and RAM use specific processes catered only to their respective usages. You can't use a NAND flash process for anything else. Likewise for a RAM process.
This is me too. Just finished the latest Dungeon Crawler Carl book, bought on day 1. Have completely replaced Google, stackoverflow, medium, digital ocean documentation, etc. Only HN remains and honestly it’s less to keep my finger on the pulse and more habit than anything these days. Went from a large part of my consumption to zero visits since I got Claude code.
Makes me wonder what’s going to happen to AI’s results if all these content streams dry up.
