Developers will jump ship to a better tool at a blink of an eye. I wouldn't call it locked in at all. In fact, people do use Claude Code and Codex simultaneously in some cases.
Individual and startup devs yes. Enterprise devs, less so.
The latter are locked in to whatever vendor(s) their corporate entity has subscribed to. In a perverse twist, this gives the approved[tm] vendors an incentive to add backend integrations to multiple different providers so that their actual end-users can - at least in theory - choose which models to use for their work.
We're seeking an experienced SRE / Platform Engineer to design, build, and maintain scalable infrastructure for mission-critical systems in a fast-paced environment:
Requirements:
- 8+ years industry experience (3+ years in platform/SRE roles)
- Strong Linux/Unix, networking, and system internals knowledge
- Programming skills (Python, Go, Java)
- Cloud platforms (AWS, Azure, GCP) and Kubernetes
One of the main things we’re aiming to do here is make these manual processes much less manual! I’m a big believer in automating things gradually, which runbooks enable
Unfortunately that’s not true any more. TRT over prescribing is a major problem right now.
Studies of TRT patients have even shown that 1/4 of TRT patients may not have had their testosterone levels measured before being prescribed TRT: (Source https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6406807/ ) Completely unacceptable given how cheap testosterone testing is, but its happening.
TRT clinics have also become a big business. Their business model relies on prescribing TRT to anyone and then charging them monthly or quarterly to continue receiving those prescriptions, which as the parent comment noted become physically necessary after TRT causes the testes to atrophy.
The trick the clinics are using now is “diagnosing by symptoms”. They have a long list of “symptoms of low T” and the patient is basically prompted to check off enough boxes to justify TRT. It’s the same model as the medical marijuana card businesses where you can go in and the doctor will “find” a reason to give you the prescription.
It’s a real problem when combined with social media influencers who tell people that everything is a symptom of low testosterone and TRT will fix it.
>>The trick the clinics are using now is “diagnosing by symptoms”.
You can't really diagnose by levels, though, unless you knew what that person's previous levels were. Setting an average across a population is not really realistic - you can't say Shaq should work to the same levels as, say, Emo Phillips.
TRT is normally used due to aging, though, so you are unlikely to have your testosterone levels spontaneously recover as you get older. You do tend to need to be on it for life, in the same way that women stay on HRT.
However, if you did need to get off, bodybuilders have "post cycle therapies" to kick start production so it seems to be possible.
If someone shows up with a testosterone level of 700 you can (and should) explain that low testosterone is not the explanation for whatever they’re suffering from.
The TRT clinics are ignoring levels or even not testing at all. They’ll find an excuse to prescribe to someone even who has clinically high levels because they want the monthly recurring revenue from keeping that customer for life.
> If someone shows up with a testosterone level of 700 you can (and should) explain that low testosterone is not the explanation for whatever they’re suffering from.
I'm not going to say TRT clinics are the best actors here, but to an actual endocrinologist, diagnosing hormone issues isn't so simple as looking at single point-in-time measurement of total testosterone.
Testosterone levels naturally vary even for a given individual - two readings at the same time of day on different days even a short period apart can be dramatically different - and that's not even taking into consideration the fact that total testosterone levels aren't the sole (or even primary) mechanism for diagnosing androgenic endocrine issues.
Yup that's right. I had multiple low (<200) tests over 3 years, and finally was able to get on it (haven't actually started it yet to be fair).
Now I am worried about the long term effects, but it's been so long that if I am on it for the rest of my life and it does help me, that's good enough.
What if the person complaining had spent all their life at a base level of 1000? Diagnosing off population base levels is a very blunt tool.
I don't disagree that there are some bad actors out there - the bar to getting it under 40 or 50 should be very high. But honestly, I think everyone's levels should be checked before being put on an SSRI for depression.
>You can't really diagnose by levels, though, unless you knew what that person's previous levels were.
Exactly. Before suggesting it. my doctor had more than a year's worth of data. (I have some blood tests done quarterly; so, he added one for testosterone.) Even then, he sent the results to my urologist.
But also - say over your 55th year your levels were 800, but when you felt your best and most confident at 35, your levels were 1000. What is the correct level for you?
TBD. I was told you start TRT and then check the level in three months. Based on the new level and symptoms, the dosage gets adjusted. That's the difference between doing actually in consultation with a doctor, as opposed to a one-time phone/internet "consult."
I’m getting downvoted in another comment for saying this, but it’s a growing problem. In some surveys of TRT patients up to 1/4 of them didn’t even have their testosterone levels measured before being prescribed TRT. The men’s health clinics are finding excuses to diagnose everyone who calls. The lifetime value of a monthly TRT customer is very high.
> Saying that the men's vitality clinic "pushed you" into a treatment protocol is like saying that a fertility clinic pushed you into getting pregnant.
No, it isn't. “Men’s vitality” doesn’t mean “getting pumped with testosterone regardless of indications” the way “fertility” means “getting pregnant” in either literal denotation of words or the understanding of the general population.
> Sure, it's a common outcome, but you had an idea of what you wanted out of it before you walked in the door.
Yes, but in the case of fertility clinics, getting pregnant aas definitely the outcome beinf sought. Being pumped with testosterone isn’t the outcome being sought from a men’s vitality clinic, it is (even for the people who are actively thinking about it) a mechanism (and not an appropriate one for every patient) for atteempting to acheive the desired outcome.
If you go to a fertility clinic and they don't attempt to identify the source of your fertility issues and just pump you with hormones not indicated for your specific issue, that would be wrong, too.
> No, it isn't. “Men’s vitality” doesn’t mean “getting pumped with testosterone regardless of indications”
When I Google "men's vitality clinic", the top result I see is titled "Your experts for testosterone replacement therapy...". TRT is front and center.
> Being pumped with testosterone isn’t the outcome being sought from a men’s vitality clinic, it is (even for the people who are actively thinking about it) a mechanism (and not an appropriate one for every patient) for atteempting to acheive the desired outcome.
This is such a weird distinction to try and make.
I frequently see ads for these services, and even when they're not so explicit as that one is about what they're selling, it's extremely clear what demographic they're going after and what the hook is.
Testosterone being a Schedule III substance, "men's vitality" is the way that they can legally advertise an service that prescribes AAS. It's no more of a secret that men's vitality clinics prescribe testosterone than it is that fertility clinics are prescribing estradiol. Both of these are sex hormones that induce a specific effect on the body which the patient is looking for.
Can I imagine someone walking into a men's vitality clinic and being surprised that they're getting offered testosterone? Sure, and there's also that German couple who went to a fertility clinic because they weren't having a baby, and were surprised to learn that they needed to start having sex.
Clueless people exist. That doesn't mean that it's not readily obvious to anyone who's paying attention what these clinics exist to do, and how they do it.
It seems to me you're comparing apples and oranges here.
I don't think so. 1 billion users and a clear intention to deliver ads with an immense amount of data on users. That's a clear threat to both Meta and Google.
PS. That's why Meta and Google are all in on AI. OpenAI is an existential threat to both in my humble opinion.
> You didn't state reasons why not being a social platform matters here.
There's nothing to pointlessly waste your time on. You open it to do a thing, you either do the thing or get frustrated or leave. Social networks are designed to waste your time even when they outlive their usefulness, therefore they can serve you more ads.
You could argue Google is the same as ChatGPT in that regard, but that's why Google has Adsense in almost any search result you click on.
As for your group chats feature argument, anyone can make a social network, that's the easy part. Getting friend groups to switch is the more difficult part.
> PS. That's why Meta and Google are all in on AI. OpenAI is an existential threat to both in my humble opinion.
They're all in on AI because that's what their investors want them to do to "not be left behind". Meta was all in Metaverse. And on a cryptocurrency before that (Diem). And on Free Basics before that. The fact that none of those succeeded didn't hurt them at all precisely because they had an infinite money glitch known as ads.
They can afford to waste amounts of money equivalent to a yearly budget of a small country, ChatGPT can't.
>There's nothing to pointlessly waste your time on.
Like Google Search, this does not really matter. Fact is, chatgpt is the 5th most visited site on the planet every month. And it happened in about 3 years. 'Nothing to waste your time on?' Completely irrelevant.
Being the most visited or the most used or the most whatever is absolutely useless information, and you should delete it from your mind.
Any idiot off the street can be the most used website on Earth. Easy - go to my website, and I give you free stuff. So why am I not a billionaire? Because that's a dumbass business model and that won't go anywhere.
The idea that if you just "flood the market" you can be successful is a crock of shit, and I think we're all starting to realize it. It's not difficult, or impressive, or laborious to provide something people want. It's difficult to do it in a way that makes money.
You might say - but what about Spotify? What about Uber? Those companies are not successful. They are just barely profitable, after investment on the order of decades. We don't actually know if a service like Spotify even works long term. It sounds fantastic - pay ten bucks or whatever and get all the music you want.
But has anyone taken a step back and asked - hmm - how do we make money off of this? Because obviously that is not the cost of music, right? And we don't own any of the capital, right? And we don't actually make a product, right, we're just a middle man?
ChatGPT is in a similar predicament. The value of ChatGPT is not the ChatGPT, it's what ChatGPT produces. It's a middle man, operating at massive losses, with absolutely no path towards profitability.
> The value of ChatGPT is not the ChatGPT, it's what ChatGPT produces. It's a middleman...
Spotify and Uber are aggregators with high marginal costs that they do not control. Spotify has to pay labels for every stream; Uber has to pay drivers for every ride. They cannot scale their way out of those costs because they don't own the underlying asset (the music or the labor).
OpenAI is not a middleman; they own the factory. They are "manufacturing" intelligence. Their primary costs are compute and energy. Unlike human labor (Uber) or IP licensing (Spotify), the cost of compute is on a strong deflationary curve. Inference costs have dropped orders of magnitudes in the last couple years while model quality has improved and costs will keep dropping. Gemini's median query costs no more than a google search. LLM inference is already cheap.
> Any idiot off the street can be the most used website on Earth. Easy - go to my website, and I give you free stuff.
If they were only burning cash to give away a free product, you’d be right. But they are reportedly at ~$4B in annualized revenue. That is not "giving away free stuff" to inflate metrics; that is the fastest-growing SaaS product in history.
You are conflating "burning cash to build infrastructure" (classic aggressive scaling, like early Amazon) with "structurally unprofitable unit economics" (MoviePass).
Open AI's unit economics are fine. Inference is cheap enough for ads to be viable enough for profitability as a business today. The costs this article is alluding to ? Open AI don't need to do any of that for tier of models and use-cases they have today. They are trying to build and be able to serve 'AGI', which they project will be orders of magnitudes more costly. If they do manage that, then none of those costs will matter. If they don't, then they can just...not do it. 'AGI' is not necessary for Open AI to be a profitable business.
> But they are reportedly at ~$4B in annualized revenue. That is not "giving away free stuff" to inflate metrics; that is the fastest-growing SaaS product in history.
Right, which is just not very impressive giving how much money they are burning.
> Open AI's unit economics are fine
I disagree, they lose massive amounts of money on every query.
The only way for OpenAI to make money off queries is to make it cost more, but that won't work because they have no moat, and cannot even create a moat because of how LLMs work. Again, the model itself or the interface is worthless, consumers only care about what it produces.
Google, Meta, et al. could trivially overthrow OpenAI in my view. Most users probably wouldn't even notice, because they use other interfaces on top of models.
I also think ads are a dead end. Consumers absolutely will not tolerate advertisements in their LLMs. No student is going to submit an essay which has obvious hints towards Bose making the best speakers. No programmer is going to write code that embeds a Java runtime because Oracle paid for OpenAI ad space. No artist is going to publish art that just so happens to contain lots of references to Coca Cola.
LLM chats are just not like other tools. If Google has ads, they can get in the way, but the core Google thing is not compromised. If an LLM has ads, I can no longer trust ANY of it's output, ever, and it's as good as worthless.
OpenAI might be tempted to do the dark pattern thing and hide their ads as much as possible, but I don't think that will work either. It's just not acceptable for the tool to do that, and I don't think consumers will be stupid enough to fall for it. Already, we are seeing online advertisement rapidly plummet in value due to the sheer volume and amount of scams.
Advertisers don't know that yet, but they will. Google might know it, but they certainly won't say it out loud. I can tell you right now, the average consumer has been so bombarded by shitty ads they've become masterminds. They expertly navigate around them, and elegantly ignore them in their peripheral vision. They know X, Y, Z is a scam. New advertisement mediums shake it up, for a bit, but then those die too. Metrics won't necessarily tell you that, because most users are robots so you wouldn't know.
>Right, which is just not very impressive giving how much money they are burning
They are not burning that much money right now.
>I disagree, they lose massive amounts of money on every query.
Both google and Altman confirm the fact that a median LLM query is no more expensive than a google search. Beyond that, we have multiple third parties with who offer profitable access to open source llms and others. Inference is cheap, there's no doubt about it. They lose money because they have hundreds of millions of weekly active users that are not monetized in any way (no ads, nothing).
>Google, Meta, et al. could trivially overthrow OpenAI in my view.
If they could, it would have happened. Both of these players are stuffing their clones in front of billions of users (android and all of meta's apps), and neither have dented Open AI's growth or relevance. ChatGPT is still the undisputed leader in the consumer llm space. Gemini is a very very distant second, and the rest might as well not even register.
There's a reason edge and bing usage is still minuscule despite microsoft having a chokehold on consumer laptops/computers and setting those as defaults. People need to understand that you don't unseat a leader just by copying them. They wish the could trivially overthrow Open AI, but they actually can't.
>I also think ads are a dead end. Consumers absolutely will not tolerate advertisements in their LLMs.
People have said that about Netflix and countless services that introduced ads. Instead, it quickly became Netflix's most popular tier. The Implentation has to be really obnoxious before people actually care about ads.
>No student is going to submit an essay which has obvious hints towards Bose making the best speakers. No programmer is going to write code that embeds a Java runtime because Oracle paid for OpenAI ad space. No artist is going to publish art that just so happens to contain lots of references to Coca Cola.
I'm sorry but you are making up problems that don't need to exist. You are essentially imagining the llm equivalent of obtrusive pop up ads and I have no idea why. Of course chatgpt won't be doing any of these, that's ridiculous.
Online ads simply do not have anywhere NEAR even value for OpenAi. And with each passing day, they become more and more worthless.
You're missing the forest here. Yes, Netflix has ads, but to do so they had to bring down the value of ALL ADVERTISING. The more ads consumers see, the less valuable each individual ad is. Because consumers are tired, and they only have so much money.
As of currently stands, online ads are very close to worthless. Again - nobody is going to tell you that, because they're trying to sell you ad space! But it's true. Just look at how the people around you behave.
> You didn't state reasons why not being a social platform matters here.
The network effects matter so much more for a social platform than a chat bot. The switching costs for a user are much lower, so users can move to a different one much easier.
How sticky will chat bots prove to be in the long term? Will OpenAI be able to maintain a lead in the space in the long term, the way Google was over Bing? It's possible, but it's also pretty easy to imagine other providers being competitive and a landscape where users move between different LLMs more fluidly
Another reason why social media matters is that people actually spend their free time in all those feeds. On the other hand, using LLMs is much more oriented towards specific utilities. Having 1B users who visit you once a day to ask for an email proofread will not make you profitable.
But, like search, it captures intent to buy much better, while looking at feeds for internatinment does not. Adwords worked because of that, they could capture ad revenue on queries that lead to sales. The amount of extra context in AI chat is even better, as is the ability to steer the conversation to different options.
I think Google is the much bigger threat. I've more or elss stopped using ChatGPT now, it's easier to just type the question directly into Google and get the response from their AI rather than navigating to chatgpt first. Anecdotal but I don't see anything long term keeping people on that site.
Problem is the day Google puts a similarly priced and more powerful chatbot similar to ChatGPT and powered by Gemini most users will switch without a second thought, and Google will get all that data about their personal life too. OpenAI having a free tier with powerful models is unsustainable, brand loyalty is a joke at this stage, people will not bother going to ChatGPT if the search bar in their browser starts a discussion with Google. I’m sure big players like Google know OpenAI is a temporary scheme to get free money, they are surfing along now but they are playing the long game.
I wanna push back on this a little, sure, openAI has a certain level of detail in it's dataset because of the fact that you actually have conversations with it in order to use their product, but we're talking about a short window of time since the inception of ChatGPT. Google has all your searches (if you use google.com) and all of your browsing history (if you use a chromium based browser) and all of your emails (if you use gmail.com) and they have been adding to this dataset for a lot longer. Personally I stopped using google.com and I have tried my hardest to avoid Chromium-based web-browsers in the last 5-10 years but they still have a hefty dataset of all of my actions before that or when I'm on a (work) computer that forces me to use their systems. Because of this I'm not entirely sure OpenAI knows my intent better than Google, purely based on amount of data processed.
There are plenty of things I say to ChatGPT that are not immediate need. ChatGPT can easily build a very accurate profile of me as a person and what my past, present and future needs are.
Maybe, but OpenAI only get the data you decide to type into ChatGPT in a vibe therapy session or whatever, and they have to burn a load of GPU time to keep you feeding it more slop.
Google just passively collects email and browsing history, much better data for targeting ads and way less cost to run.
I don't feel better prepared to teach at home than someone who actually went to college for the various topics covered in high school. How can I know all I need to teach about math, chemistry, english, physics, etc, etc, etc when I already have to learn so much for my own work? I think parents that think they can do a better job are delusional.
Maybe the school _environment_ that a child has access isn't great, right? But I don't think that says anything about teachers.
In California, a teacher without a chemistry degree can teach high school chemistry after passing the CSET Chemistry subtest. This requires less depth of knowledge than AP Chemistry.
Elementary Education and Pedagogy are "sciences" with an even poorer replication rate than Sociology and Psychology.
Nobody educated to teach is actually qualified to do so by virtue of said education. Teaching is largely a personality-driven and experience-acquired skill.
At school, one teacher lectures to maybe 30 students. If all they did was give individual attention student by student, each would get maybe 10 minutes a day.
The first 10 minutes of your home-school day you've beat that statistic.
After two or three hours, you're up to a month of class time.
Of course they don't do that; they just lecture. Which is something you can get online (Khan Academy).
It's all about the homework and tutoring, baby.
All you have to do is learn along with your home student, and validate their learning experience. Helps if you catch on quicker, but not even necessary.
reply