Getting users to open a message isn’t a terribly high bar.
As a user I would not find it acceptable if needed to be careful with which message I open.
We tried putting the responsibility on the user with email attachments and I think it’s fair to say it’s been a disaster.
Malicious attachments are probably the most important distribution vector for malware.
This isn't even an exploit if the crappy AI or whatever that's trying to do something fancy never "processes" the message. At least give me a choice before you automatically do that
ESPECIALLY when we're trying to be concious about the amount of resource that "AI" uses. I don't need to burn GPU cycles on something I can read with my own eyes.
Depends in goals. For long free-firm discussions I find Opus 4.7 Adaptive better/deeper than Opus 4.6 Extended. But usual caveats apply: first week of use and token budget seems generous now on Max 5X.
I had the opposite experience. Opus 4.6 extended feels like the first genuinely intelligent model to converse with, Opus 4.7 adaptive feels like slightly smarter LinkedIn slop.
Cursor is what I daily-drive. 4.7 has been terrible for my mostly python-driven work (whereas Opus 4.6 was literally revolutionary to me). Our frontend folks are also complaining.
Of course you don't NEED the better models, but figuring out what model you need can waste a lot of time and effort.
Even when a cheap model is capable of a task it needs a lot more guidance than a more expensive one.
They are also less reliable. You can waste a lot of time cleaning up after them.
Judging whether something is good enough is hard work and rerolling with a more expensive model is painful.
Judging the difficulty of a task ahead of time is very hard. Judging how good a model is for a given task even harder, especially when models and harnesses keep changing all the time.
The real productivity boost LLMs provide is already modest and when you start tinkering with models it can easily evaporate.
1. They heavily subsidized their plans vs. paying for API.
2. They allowed me to use the subscription in every tool I wanted.
3. It covered both Anthropic and OpenAI.
* change laws to accommodate it - if corporations train data, on every usage they should pay higher taxes so they can't exploit the open data, but public ledger trained model is fine to use open data
* similar tech exists (bitcoin, torrent), needs some modifications
Yes, please!
But browsers need to make it easier for things to exist in user space.
That means reviving CSS Houdini, particularly reviving the animation and layout worklets. (It got abandoned because browser vendors (Chrome in particular) found them too difficult to implement. They would need to rearchitect a good chunk of their rendering pipeline. Instead we got a bunch of very limited but easier to implement features like scroll animation timelines)
I tried to use <dialog> and found it to be a pain.
I wanted to close it when clicking outside, but Safari doesn't support closedBy.
Some Safari versions on iOS broke when trying to style my backdrop with tailwind.
The tailwind CSS reset didn't include <dialog>.
I get the allure of just using a position: fixed;
I think cutting the legacy and doing things with the benefit of hindsight would make for a much nicer platform.
For example something like CSS Houdini (making CSS extensible) might have actually happened if browsers where designed for it and would make Web Apps a lot nicer.
reply