But if it does, then in the following week we'll see DeepSeek4 floods every AI-related online space. Thousands of posts swearing how it's better than the latest models OpenAI/Anthropic/Google have but only costs pennies.
Then a few weeks later it'll be forgotten by most.
It's difficult because even if the underlying model is very good, not having a pre-built harness like Claude Code makes it very un-sticky for most devs. Even at equal quality, the friction (or at least perceived friction) is higher than the mainstream models.
If one finds it difficult to set up OpenCode to use whatever providers they want, I won't call them 'dev'.
The only real friction (if the model is actually as good as SOTA) is to convince your employer to pay for it. But again if it really provides the same value at a fraction of the cost, it'll eventually cease to be an issue.
Lmao sure. Keep spending your hard earned rubles on American corruption. I'll be spending my money on Chinese Capitalism and getting better results than your censored and rate limited slop LOLOLOLOL :)
It's very weird that they frame caching as "latency reduction" when it comes to a cloud service. I mean, yes, technically it reduces latency, but more importantly it reduces cost. Sometimes it's more than 80% of the total cost.
I'm sure most companies and customers will consider compromising quality for 80% cost reduction. If they just be honest they'll be fine.
It still shows a problem. If math and reading levels were largely improving for decades then we saw a sudden decline, it signals that something changed, especially since covid.
I've found the traditional publishing industry really interesting. It's so hard to get approved or even noticed from the gatekeepers[0]. Even getting a rejection from an agent can take months. And agents are just the very first gate. Being agented can be lightyears away from getting published.
And after so many layers of gatekeeping and due process, what got to the shelves are like, uh, Kiss of the Basilisk. I mean it totally makes sense in from a marketing perspective, but the whole situation is a little bit funny.
I have noticed some publishers are changing the way they do things, sliding into writer spaces and looking for books that are nearly ready to be published but havent found their way onto the slush pile, because no human can actually digest a slush pile anymore.
As far as I can tell it's nearly impossible to get picked up by a major publisher now unless you're bringing a very large social media following.
If you've got the social media following, your book can be really bad and it'll still get published (examples... abound). The book hardly matters, guaranteed sales via an audience you bring to the table (so, no work for them) is what they're interested in.
I mean, it was already nearly impossible, but now it's nearly-impossibler (nearlier-impossible?), with the social media following being almost necessary to make it even a very-long-shot instead of a no-you're-definitely-getting-rejected.
The best possible position is to have a breakout self-published hit. An author with that can hand the boring difficult expensive parts - print and distribution - over to a trad publisher, and keep the rights to ebooks, audio books, movies, and the rest, hiring negotiating talent as and when it's needed.
For breakout authors, publishers will often get in touch directly.
Agents are basically - well, I don't know any more. There used to be a point to them, but now they're running a kind of cottage industry of pointless gatekeeping for wannabes who will make pennies even if they are picked up.
It's not the same industry it was fifty years. It's not even the same industry it was twenty years ago.
A lot of wannabes haven't worked this out yet. They still think a proper author goes through proper channels, and is properly anointed with a proper agent and a proper contract.
And then most of them are surprised to discover their properly published book sells less than a thousand copies, and it's off the shelves almost immediately - because that's how print works unless you're a Big Name - and they can't give up their day jobs.
Really? I've never heard it's considered wise to put refactoring and new features (or bugfixes) in the same commit. Everyone I know from every place I've seen consider it bad. From harmful to a straight rejection in code review.
"Refactor-as-you-go" means to refactor right after you add features / fix bugs, not like what the agent does in this article.
Notice how they didn't say to put it in the same commit. The real issue, and why refactor as you go isn't done as much, is the overhead of splitting changes that touch the same code into different commits without disrupting your workflow. It's not as easy as it should be to support this strategy.
I think you're talking about a different topic unrelated to the linked article. In the linked article the LLM doesn't split it into several commits. If LLM had a button to split the bug fix and the overall refactoring, the author wouldn't complain and we wouldn't see this article.
reply