That’s the beauty of totally arbitrary restrictions, you can change them as you want.

Pay by seat? Pay by client? Pay by byte of data stored? Pay by backup location?

… pay by moonphase? Pay by AI personality? Pay by virtual AI seat?

Such BS but why wouldn’t Microslop extend its business model. It worked well so far. It’s not about software, or datacenter, or AI, it’s just about entrenchment.

How many of those 8 are doing anything, ANYTHING, about it though?

Regardless of skill level for-profit GenAI/LLM AI has a terrible economical (funding focus), political (regulatory capture), social (dataset clean up, PR floods on FLOSS projects, spam & scam) and ecological (GPU deprecation pace, data centers) impact.

So… even if somehow a person is so skilled they finally find good use for models hosted by Anthropic, OpenAI, etc then unfortunately they can’t disentangle it from all the negative externalities.

IMHO what it shows isn’t what the author tries to show, namely that there is an overwhelming swarm of bits, but rather that those bots are just not good enough even for a bot enthusiast. They are literally making money from that “all-in-one AI workspace. Chat - MCP - Gateway” and yet they want to “let me prioritize PRs raised by humans” … but why? Why do that in the first place? If bots/LLMs/agents/GenAI genuinely worked they would not care if it was made or not by humans, it would just be quality submission to share.

Also IMHO this is showing another problem that most AI enthusiasts are into : not having a proper API.

This repository is actually NOT a code repository. It’s a collaborative list. It’s not code for software. It’s basically a spreadsheet one can read and, after review, append on. They are hijacking Github because it’s popular but this is NOT a normal use case.

So… yes it’s quite interesting to know but IMHO it shows more shortcomings rather than what the title claims.