←back to thread

190 points arittr | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
antirez ◴[] No.44003190[source]
So because they need to have a better business model, they will try to move users to weaker models compared to the best available? This "AI inside the editor" thing makes every day less sense in many dimensions: it makes you not really capable of escaping the accept, accept, accept trap. It makes the design interaction with the LLM too much about code and too little about the design itself. And you can't do what many of us do: have that three subscriptions for the top LLMs available (it's 60$ for 3, after all) and use each for it's best. And by default write your stuff without help if LLMs are not needed in a given moment.
replies(8): >>44003218 #>>44003232 #>>44003442 #>>44003514 #>>44004509 #>>44006515 #>>44007143 #>>44007522 #
1. bluelightning2k ◴[] No.44003514[source]
I don't like or agree with this take. You're basically saying - "something good exists, so why try to improve upon it".

Their stated goal is to improve on the frontier models. It's ambitious, but on the other hand they were a model company before they were an IDE company (IIRC) and they have a lot of data, and the scope is to make a model which is specialized for their specific case.

At the very least I would expect they would succeed in specializing a fronteir model for their use-case by feeding their pipeline of data (whether they should have that data to begin with is another question).

The blog post doesn't say much about the model itself, but there's a few candidates to fine tune from.