Both programs have been announced as granting six months, but neither of them have explicitly said that there won't be options to renew for another six months.
I expect they haven't decided that themselves yet and don't want to commit publicly until they've seen how well the program goes.
Even if you’re right, no one should be making a decision of enrolling into those programs because maybe, with zero indication they’ll be renewed again in six months.
You know what they could also do? Stop the programs for new enrolments next month. Or if if they renew them like you said, it could be with new conditions which exclude people currently on them.
There are too many unknowns, and giving these companies the benefit of the doubt that they’ll give more instead of taking more goes counter to everything they showed so far.
No, my argument is that your “but neither of them have explicitly said that there won't be options to renew for another six months” point is not something anyone should realistically be counting on, and is not a valid counter argument to your parent post of “Isn't the Claude one only for a few months?”.
We should be discussing what is factual now, not be making up scenarios which could maybe happen but have zero indication that they will.
I didn't say that I thought they would likely extend it, but I stand by my statement that it's a possibility.
Neither company have expressed that the six month thing is a hard limit.
The fact that OpenAI shipped their version within two weeks of Anthropic's announcement suggests to me that they're competing with each other for credibility with the open source community.
(Obviously if you make decisions based on the assumption that the program will be expanded later you're not acting rationally.)
If I understand correctly, they are literally giving things away for free for a 6 months period and we are complaining that they don't promise it stays free forever?
No, you did not understand correctly. They are not “literally giving things away for free”, they are providing a very conditional free trial, which is a business decision and not anything new. Then a commenter speculated they might extend that program because they didn’t say they won’t and I pointed out it doesn’t make sense to assume they will. No one on this immediate thread made any complaint, we’re discussing the facts of the offering.
As many other comments have said there probably is a good percent of stars by claws themselves, I would be curious what percent this is but it is also interesting: current "dumb bot" stars/spam etc is entirely automated and coordinated but these claws probably independently reasoned over long thought chains about why it is a good idea to star openclaw.
Starlink and Falcon 9 have been an excellent pairing, Falcon 9 partially reusable rockets created a lot launch capacity and starlink filled the demand. Starship if it meets its goals will create more launch fully reusable supply by orders of magnitude, but there is not the demand for all that launch capacity. Starlink can take some of it but probably not all so they need to find a customer to fill it in order to build up enough to have the volume to eventually colonize mars.
We can tell because it’s not being treated as a serious goal. 100% of the focus is on the big vroom vroom part that’s really exciting to kids who get particularly excited by things that go vroom, and approximately 0% of the focus is on developing all the less glamorous but equally essential components of a successful Mars mission, like making sure the crew stays healthy.
As much as I'd like to see boots on the ground on Mars this is where I'm at. In my uneducated opinion, while building the massive rocket is incredibly difficult, its probably the easiest part of a Mars mission.
Correct, and this is meant to attract the same investors and Bulls that already think Mars colonies is a solved problem, just need a few more years to run some tests. As with all, it is only about making himself richer.
I could see prediction markets handing insurance in the future, it could probably get fairer prices but would have to be done right to avoid bad incentives, interesting to think about how that might work.
