I wanted to root for Mark and Meta as another frontier lab especially focused on open source but at this moment I have to say who cares. Gemini has a better OS track record thus far. Alex Wang is a reputational hazard. It is hard to get over the bias that this too might be benchmaxxed. I'd love to see demos of products actually using these models to overcome that but with the current pace of progress now my intuition says skip all this.
Sounds like they'll finetune the model on your existing codebase. Even if Microsoft/Github offers this functionality, it's the kind of thing where it may be worth paying a premium to have good customer support telling you exactly how to make use of this.
It's like how there are plenty of people paying for DB software which is 'worse' than mainstream free ones, but they really like the fact they can call experts who will tell them what they are doing wrong with query optimization, etc.
>It's like how there are plenty of people paying for DB software which is 'worse' than mainstream free ones, but they really like the fact they can call experts who will tell them what they are doing wrong with query optimization, etc.
And for us, poor peasants, there's always going to be stackoverflow.
Another thing is that since Microsoft/Github are working with OpenAI's closed source Codex model, we think it's unlikely they'll offer something on-prem anytime soon since they would have to reveal the model weights, and thus risk a leak (ex. Meta's LLaMA model weights got leaked within a week)
That is a... very big assumption that I wouldn't put money on.
It's become pretty clear that models aren't a moat. If everyone has Codex-class capability (which is already happening), there's no real risk to them deploying on-prem, because the model itself is a commodity.
At that point you would need to compete on service and price. They'll also get the first mover lock in advantage. Once a large company deploys your product to 5000 devs you are pretty much in for life. /me waves to jira.
It depends on when you signed the non-disparagement agreement.
> The decision involved severance agreements offered to furloughed employees that prohibited them from making statements that could disparage the employer and from disclosing the terms of the agreement itself.
Was the agreement part of getting hired? or getting laid off?
That said, I suspect that this will result in a reduction of severance agreements since there is very little that the company can gain out of a severance agreement now (I am assuming this also extends to various "you can't sue the company for wrongful termination" and similar).
A lot of severance stuff is questionably enforceable. Discrimination lawsuits can still be successfully brought under a number of circumstances. You can’t just put a clause in it. This is especially true if the employee is laid off and forced to sign immediately.
> That said, I suspect that this will result in a reduction of severance agreements since there is very little that the company can gain out of a severance agreement now (I am assuming this also extends to various "you can't sue the company for wrongful termination" and similar).
This wasn't the case from the establishment of the original precedent until 2020 when that ruling was reversed. We're simply going back to a state that has existed for decades, and in which severance agreements were by no means rare.
> Disparagement means anything negative statement about someone or something. So the non-disparagement provision in your employment agreement or severance agreement applies to any and every negative statement. It does not matter if the statement is true or not, opinion or fact. If your statement makes your employer look bad, it is disparagement.
If you have signed a non-disparagement agreement, the best advice is likely "decline to say anything about the subject."
I'd definitely be arguing, via a lawyer, that "negative" is in the eye of the beholder. Employees do not benefit from layoffs, shareowners do, for example.
