I do think the difference is also dictated by how non-deterministic the job output of execs and ICs can be. For example, if exec will use slightly different words to communicate the thought, there won't be a critical error in understanding. While if IC will get the syntax wrong or deletes the wrong service accidentally, this service (or connected ones) might stop working entirely.

Hi, sorry, what's a 'red pill'? Don't really keep up with the slang, sorry..

Its use here is a decade or more old. Originally referring to a movie over two decades old. The short version, seeing the world as it is instead of how it's fed to you.

a) what happens if there is change that hasn't been encountered yet so it's not in .agentnotallowed? b) is there a guarantee that something described in these files won't be touched? I've seen examples when agents directly violate these rules, profusely apologising after they get caught on it.

allowlist instead of denylist, depending on your risk profile :)

I think the main issue I have with the article is that author whole argument is based on 'Qwen wouldn't run at a loss'. But why wouldn't it? Depsite it being a business, there might be a number of arguments why they decide to run without profit for now: from trying to expand the user base, to Chinese government sponsoring Chinese AI business.

Hi, OP here! Even if Qwen wants to run at a loss, why would Together, DeepInfra, SiliconFlow, etc _all_ also want to run at a similar loss?

To capture market.

Nothing differentiates them. Anything they capture is based only on price and when they raise it, they lose it entirely.