[gilrain]

No, it doesn’t. Their competition is not similarly unstable, despite existing in the same world of LLMs. Think critically.

[datsci_est_2015]

Devil’s advocate, Pareto heuristic would let us speculate that 80% of LLM traffic would be aimed directly at the largest provider, i.e. GitHub.

[abejfehr]

I think it’s much more than 80%, it’s probably the default recommendation and folks who aren’t technical would just accept it. Probably closer to 95% or more

[gilrain]

Your speculation is that their competitors would naturally not see a commensurate increase in instability while “only” handling 20% of the same crisis?

I don’t buy the excuse. I want to hitch my wagon to those “mysteriously lucky” competitors. (And have. And haven’t had similar issues to Github, since.)

[datsci_est_2015]

Competitors would be long tail, so a different mode of traffic entirely. Maybe they get spikes that are more easily whack-a-moled than the constant hammering that GitHub receives.

Tough to say as this is all speculative, though.

[porridgeraisin]

It's probably a threshold thing isn't it? You wouldn't get 20% of the effect at 20% of the traffic. There's a step function in there somewhere.

[necovek]

Isn't the relative increase more of interest? If someone was only owning 10% of the market, and they've only gotten 8% (percentage points) of the 20%-not-GH LLM-related increase, they'd still be seeing a very similar spike compared to their baseline as GitHub.

[vitally3643]

Their competition doesn't have nearly the same scale of traffic because they don't have nearly the same scale of users or network effects.

Think critically.