@leeovery@bcherny Agreed, it feels like opus was dumbed down on purpose. My best guess/bet is that they are cooking a new model. So they reduced the current opus capacity and when the next model drops everyone will be like "wooh that's a gamechanger"
It happened every model release since sonnet 4
@ZeroCompWhop Not having a verified problem with proven demand.
And secondary would be once the solution to the problem is shipped i dont know how to advertise to where the attention is (of those that create the demand)
> Be Sam Altman.
> Promises to stay nonprofit → converted to capped profit.
> Has a board that controls safety→ fired the board.
> Promises never to I ntroduce Ads → implements ads.
> Promises no mass surveillance → signed a deal with escape clauses the same night his competitor got banned.
@Matteoitalia4@Santhear@DelusionPosting As a person from poland whose parents and grandparents lived in communism, this is literally exactly what they all say :D
@hiopien@PeterLBrandt Ok, but why allow them to leech? Enter the society and play by its rules or gtfo. Don't want to play by the rules? You have no place here. Literally that simple
Many are underestimating the risk here.
I think @NickSzabo4 is signaling something deeper: it’s probably not wise to expand Bitcoin’s default data-relay surface right when the network is under peak institutional scrutiny.
The threat isn’t just misuse or spam.
It’s the narrative an adversary could manufacture.
“Thousands of Bitcoin nodes are transmitting prohibited material.”
There are entire libraries of laws governing legible digital content, and very few people in Bitcoin understand how broad those statutes are or how easily they can be weaponized.
Assuming courts and regulators behave rationally is wishful thinking.
This is a moment to keep Bitcoin boring and stable while we go through an important adoption moment.