I realise people on the monthly plans can't do it as easily. But I would say that as far as possible, having a plan B is the foundation of resilience.
That doesn't work for all systems, and not for all businesses, but I would say the mass majority can 'suffer' 24 hours without email or an LLM without everything going up in flames.
That's not always easy to do, but with something like inference providers it is, so why not kill two birds with one stone?
Another reason to have good Evals…
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
You are also a system. And, if you, as a system, don't run with Claude, you're not sufficiently hardened. People have made all sorts of helpful suggestions, like de-risking with multiple providers or just getting yourself a better Mac to run a local model.
The idea that: "No, no, we must have Claude, b/c it's the same as having a pen and paper!" is woefully naive. It's hard to attack the supply chain of pen and paper if you have a few extra reams and a few extra sticks. It's pretty easy for our geopolitical enemies to attack computers located far away from you, especially those systems are designed like fragile Rube Goldberg machines; furthermore, if we build an entire society (a system) to be productive only when we have LLMs, our issue isn't "insufficient-hardening". It's that the design is wrong.
Well, I just finished a meeting where we diagrammed out how change authority is to be structured as we split one group into two, which teams will retain what authorities. Zero claude involvement. Ten people in a room. Whiteboard and markers with a "scribe" taking notes. I am now editing old SOPs to reflect the decisions made in the meeting ... not something we would trust to claude or any other AI.
Let me know when the tech industry workers stop doing this and gains some solidarity, and I'll join you in that sentiment.
Until then, I pretty much need to bolster myself on the idea that one day I will need to switch frameworks, IDE's, and even OS's themselves. I'm the ones guiding the tools, not vice versa.
>We simply need to work harder for more of these 9s
The only 100% thing I will guarantee is that these tools will align to the incentives of their leadership over time, not the customers using it. add 10 9's if you want, that just guarantees that humanity is the weakest link.
I'm not sure if this is your intent, but this paragraph reads like satire given current real world events.
The systems you mention in your second sentence are failing at the "right response" you mention in your third, which dictates that contrary to your first sentence alternative action is necessary.
You cannot harden systems you have no control over. Societal level assurances require law and goverment regulation and enforcement. It is juvenile to pretend otherwise. If we were talking about government services, then as a taxpayer you would have some avenue to enact change.
Your only option when dealing with private companies is to try and become anti-fragile as much as possible at a personal level or at the level of your own company.