>(Bloomberg) -- DeepSeek is steeply raising the prices for its flagship V4 models, bringing the low-cost provider's rates closer to those of major artificial intelligence rivals.
Just got this email:
> We plan to raise the overall pricing for DeepSeek API services in the near future, with a significant increase expected. Please plan your usage accordingly. The specific pricing plan will be subject to official notice. Please keep an eye on the Open Platform announcements and check your email for further details.
I find it interesting they are coming out and saying the increase will be “significant” because their whole thing is being the cheap option. Feels like a harbinger of stuff crashing down.
Greg Kroah-Hartman will reject LLM code in the staging area of the kernel due to this being the ground where newcomers can learn kernel development, so using LLMs defeats the purpose of this endeavor.
There is an interesting tidbit where Greg puts doubt on the effectiveness of LLMs:
>Note, LLMs are very good at finding suspect "security issues" in kernel code these days. But even with the best of the current and next generation tools, at least 1/3 of the results they generate are flat out wrong or harmful. So, if you think your LLM-found/fixed issue in a drivers/staging/ file is really valid, it's fine to submit it BUT you must have first tested it on the actual hardware for the driver, and described how you have done so, in order for us to be willing to take the change. This testing process should _hopefully_ weed out the 1/3 wrong reports, but that isn't always the case, so you MUST be willing to defend your submission and prove that it really is correct in fixing a bug that a user can actually hit.
Eric Morrison watches a guy who wants to automate everything, even coming up with ideas...
Honestly the headline speaks for itself, 5.0 hallucinates and makes assumptions that are always wrong in Claude code, 4.8 never used to do this. Or the odd occasion when it did it has never been this bad.
This stinks.
Curious to know. And why if so? I have 16+ years of experience as a dev.
It's been 1 week that I stopped completely and so far it is okay and luckily I can still code ;) (though got rusty initially) and that's what I enjoy doing, thinking about problems, architecting, writing tests, writing code, reviewing PR's etc. keeps my brain sharp and more confident.
So, Codeberg has voted (with a 70-30 decision in favor) to ban mostly LLM generated repositories from their platform. This means no more vibecoded, spec-driven Claude/Codex/OpenClaw (ew) induced code bases are allowed to be pushed onto Codeberg.
Codeberg is a bit of a special place in comparison to other code hosting platforms (e.g. Github, Gitlab, etc...) in which it operates as an "Eingetragener Verein" (German legal form of a Club, like a local football club for example), meaning you can become a member an obtain voting rights in decisions such as these. Codeberg has 1085, of which 517 decided to vote on this. (This is different from the user number, which sits a little under 400k currently! You have to actively become a voting member by paying a membership fee.)
Enforcement of this rule aside, which will not be an easy task, this shows even though everyone might scream at you that every engineer loves and could never even imagine coding without their almighty LLM buddy, it seems there are spaces where this is not true, and the majority of the people contributing decided it should be like this. Alongside policies for projects such as Godot which also limit LLM code contributions, the flood isn't unstoppable. If you care for software as a craft and passion, look outside the bubble, there's people thinking just alike.
I know Prime's friends founded Opencode, but, is this bullshit or is Prime really promoting slop software?
Terrence Tao(one of the best mathematicians in the world) vibe coded some visualizations using LLMs, and he gave us some points arguing why this was justified, and at the same time, he exposed the weaknesses of vibe coding. I find it funny how someone who is not a software engineer can pin point exactly the risks of using LLMs for coding without restriction, but many of so called "true software engineers" seem to ignore this and dismiss all the negative factors. He also says that he continues to program manually to keep his skills, while some software engineers say that they have stopped manually coding completely, without caring about deskilling. He even cautions against unrestricted LLM use. Is this the state of the modern software industry? Is a mathematician following better practices than some "industry leaders"? Why is a mathematician giving more balanced takes than many people in this field?
"If you don't use it, you will be left behind.", well, the most valuable company in the world is now one that is being "left behind", because in contrast with the other big tech behemoths, Apple has been very reluctant to pour money into LLMs. Big tech has been shoving LLMs on everyone for almost 4 years, investing trillions without any ROI in sight… Except Apple, who didn't fall for the hype and just kept doing what they do, and although they are integrating LLMs in its operating systems, in comparison with other companies, they've been very conservative . The result? According to Reuters, Apple shares have outperformed the "Magnificent 7" this year.
Cursor executes any git.exe without care. This vulnerability was reported to Cursor 7 months ago, but they seem to not care at all…
Another product has been cancelled by OpenAI. Isn't it ironic? The company that has unlimited "PHD intelligence" can't make a succesful product, and the company that has unlimited access to coding agents that(supposedly) 10X your productivity can't make software that people are willing to use. Sam Altman has run out of ideas, so it does what losers do, follow the leader. OpenAI has shifted focus to selling agents to enterprise customers, since this is what the biggest LLM company in the world, Anthropic, is doing; but there is a little problem: Anthropic isn't profitable, and with some enterprises chifting to chinese models, is in doubt if it will ever be. So OpenAI's pivot seems also condemmed to fail. I suppose this is why Sam Altman is so eager that the US goverment invests in OpenAI, a bailout seems to be his last resort...
This must be a joke, right!? This book has 252 reviews, but I refuse to believe that someone is unironically buying this crap. The book is written by Steve Yegge(the guy that made Gas Town) and has a foreword from Dario Amodei(!), the CEO of Anthropic. Amazon says the book has 384 pages, which I really don't understand why, isn't the point of vibe coding that you don't have to know anything? If you are gonna read a 384 pages vibe coding book, you might as well learn to program for real...
>Mr Musk said earlier this year that AI would allow "output" per Tesla worker to get "nutty high".
>But the push to use AI has led to soaring bills, as the cost of using these systems rises with demand. There are fears that staff are also wastefully using AI to carry out menial tasks in an attempt to demonstrate they are using it.
>Several companies are now seeking to rein in staff use. Uber, which had told employees to use AI as much as possible, recently limited usage to $1,500 per month, while Meta, Walmart and Coinbase have all said they will introduce caps.
>The limits mark an about-turn from the "tokenmaxxing" trends in which staff were measured by how many tokens, a unit of AI usage, they were consuming.
>A pull-back on corporate AI usage has stoked fears of a potential stock market crash. Heavy spending on AI infrastructure by labs has helped propel markets to new heights, but this investment is predicated on rapid adoption of the technology.
