In a world where it enables you to tell your place of a work “just get us an account there so we have access to all models under a single billing account”.
In other words, it solves an organizational problem, not a technical one. That’s what the 5.5% is for.
Whether or not you prefer this or OpenRouter or one of the other LLM gateways is another discussion.
Practically, I think the premium only makes sense if the routing layer gives you something operational: one contract/invoice, EU support/legal process, spend caps, audit logs, maybe provider fallback. If it's just a pass-through to the same US/China model endpoints with +5.5%, I don't see much reason for devs to switch on price or sovereignty grounds.
I haven't looked at whether Eden does this, but Openrouter provides a number of these, and more. I go direct to the major providers, and use OpenRouter for the smaller ones because it saves me a lot of hassle.
If Eden provides a similar feature set, I'd certainly consider them.
And? The point is that it's routed to the same model. Is the middleman's nationality that important, especially when you already accept the existence of a middleman?
If you're an EU business it's easier to do B2B with other EU businesses, just like it's easier for US businesses to do B2B with other US businesses. Not sure this is strange or out of the ordinary, I think it works the same in most places in the world today.
Under the circumstance where I'm looking for a "AI Gateway" (not sure why I would, but lets say) and at the same time I prefer to use EU businesses because it tends to be easier and more familiar.
What happens after the AI Gateway don't matter that much, since the whole purpose of the product seems to be about routing LLM inference requests, if it didn't do that, I don't think they'll have anything to sell in the first place :)
IBM employees have garnered six Nobel Prizes, seven Turing Awards,
20 inductees into the U.S. National Inventors Hall of Fame, 19 National Medals of Technology,
five National Medals of Science and three Kavli Prizes. As of 2018,
the company had generated more patents than any other business in each of 25 consecutive years.
The thing is, Nobel Prizes and other awards don't pay the bills.
Patents do, but in most cases it's trivial patents or patents for a "mutually assured destruction" portfolio (aka, you keep them in hand should someone ever decide to sue you).
That's a fundamental problem with how the Western sphere prioritizes and funds R&D. Either it has direct and massive ROI promises (that's how most pharma R&D works), some sort of government backing (that's how we got mRNA - pharma corps weren't interested, or how we got the Internet, lasers, radar and microwaves) or some uber wealthy billionaire (that's how we got Tesla and SpaceX, although government aids certainly helped).
All while we are cutting back government R&D funding in the pursuit of "austerity", China just floods the system with money. And they are winning the war.
> the company had generated more patents than any other business in each of 25 consecutive years.
A couple things about those patents, from a former IBMer who has quite a few in his time there.
First, not all patents are created equal. Most of those IBM patents are software-related, and for pretty trivial stuff.
Second, most of those patents are generated by the rank and file employees, not research scientists. The IBM patent process is a well-oiled machine but they ain't exactly patenting transistor-level breakthroughs thousands of times a year.
Why do you need to generate transistor-level breakthroughs multiple times a year? Those breakthroughs are hard to generate, but they're important and industry-spanning. The problem is we've mostly stopped generating them.
I wasn't saying anything about that, I was just pointing out that yes, IBM produces a ton of patents, but they're mostly trivial junk that regular employees generate en masse in order to earn accomplishments and make up for the insultingly low bonuses.
> they're mostly trivial junk that regular employees generate en masse in order to earn accomplishments and make up for the insultingly low bonuses
We did that at Meta and Amazon too (for polycarbonate puzzle pieces, with no monetary award at all!). Every now and then something meaningful came out of it
Every year they grant prizes. If hardly anyone is doing core R&D because of cost cutting, there is a higher chance those doing the smallest amount of R&D get the prizes.
A Nobel in 2026 doesnt carry the same weight as a Nobel in 1955.
> If you as a reviewer spots things after the implementation rather in the discussion beforehand, that ends up being on both of you, instead of just the implementer who tried to move along to finish the thing
This is accurate, but it's still an important check in the communication loop. It's not all that uncommon for two engineers to discuss a problem, and leave the discussion with completely different mental models of the solution.
> I am certainly not saying people should “spend more money,” more like the Claude Code access in the Pro plan seems kind of like false advertising
Its particularly noticeable when for a long time you could work an 8 hour day in codex on ChatGPT´s $20/month plan (though they too started tightening the screws a couple of weeks back)
> The history of aspartame and the FDA is contentious and sort of infuriating
Is it? They've been dealing with conspiracy theorists on this topic for more than half a century (it was initially approved as a tabletop sweetener back in 1974), including extensive public hearings in the 1980s. There is no more thoroughly studied or litigated food additive in the department's history.
reply