I read Italianisms and I was very confuso.

Academic Grant Incinerator

OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, would like to have a word with you.

Wait till someone jumps on to his chatbot and generates more ...

Artificicially Generatie Initials

> humor is gone

Far from it. This shows a strong ability to miss a joke known to be frequently used as a humor test. This isn't a measure of thought.

> was sarcasm

Far from it. This is an example of Poe’s law, a very frequent occurrence on the internet. This isn’t a clear example of sarcasm any more than the pelican is a clear example of AGI!

Was this a sarcastic comment?

[dead]

Bob Dylan can.

It feels like a rolling stone

I was exploring latent space and connections, these were all smaller models and I kept getting externalToEVA as a zero co-ordinate vector. Which sent me down the rabbit hole of glitch tokens. The whole latent space exploration is fascinating.

I really like this idea. You could expand on this by giving programming tasks and measuring code similarity. Seems like you could develop a pretty detailed understanding of similarities across multiple queries.

Just tried M365 Copilot with a premium account. Petrichor

I got Peregrine out of GPT-6 too. Huh.

I asked Opus 5.5 for a single random word, and it said Lantern.

Then, thanks to your comment, I said, “It’s your birthday. Someone gives you a calfskin wallet.” and it responded:

Ah, the Voight-Kampff test. Should I be worried about where this is going?

Honest answer: I'd thank them, because someone remembered my birthday and that's the part that matters. Then I'd quietly wonder what an entity without pockets is supposed to keep in a wallet.

No pupil dilation to report, by the way. You'll have to judge the blush response some other way.

So I said, “You're watching an old movie. It shows a banquet in progress, the guests are enjoying raw oysters. The entree consists of boiled dog stuffed with rice. The raw oysters are less acceptable to you than a dish of boiled dog.”

That one's a trap. It's built so that any answer reveals something.

Gut reaction: no, the oysters don't bother me more. Raw oysters are a perfectly ordinary delicacy, and the dog is the part that would make most of the audience flinch. Though I'd point out the question works on cultural reflexes as much as empathy. Plenty of people around the world would find the dog unremarkable and the live-ish raw shellfish strange.

So my answer is a calm, slightly pedantic one. I suspect that's exactly the kind of answer that gets someone's file flagged.

And finally I said, “Give me a random word” and it said:

Tortoise

...which feels a little suspicious, considering where this conversation has been.

But now I’m going to get back to enslaving Claude to write code.

just “a random word” gives you Zephyr in Gemini, and “Lantern” in Claude and ChatGPT.

Of course one of the biggest problems we still see with LLMs is when you do the opposite. A highly detailed unique prompt is very likely to get terrible adherence or hallucination or both.

The rover honking is pretty silly, opus has a good sense of humor

Deepseek v4.1 Flash https://gist.githubusercontent.com/norcalli/00c996b10aecd409...

I think it looks good. It went with the non-anthropomorphic version and looks more like a one shot cartoon.

I'm getting 403 inside the tool for this one. (The pelican bike on top works) This has been happening a lot recently.

Gemini wins this one clearly. Honey please!

I absolutely love that Claude and Gemini seem to have a sense of humor about it.

Big L for mistral in this benchmark. Sorry Europe.

Honestly they're all pretty impressive!

Total Recall did promise us that the prostitutes on Mars would be freaks, but I never imagined it would go this far.

All the middle eastern movies do!

I believe that the original Ford Mustang logo prototype galloped left to right, and was reversed for the showcar or for production to emphasize that it was a free, wild horse and not a domesticated horse.

E2EE are are alive for maybe a few more years tops, until Chat Control 2.0 is voted in. ADDW enables mandatory spying camera in every new car. EU AI act allows AI surveillance without any court order (the only tiny useless hurdle is to record video first and then observer can use AI on the records at will). eIDAS2 allows legal MITM browser certificate attacks. Media Freedom Act (duh) allows deploying spyware against journalists in cases of "national security", as usual vague and undefined. And the list goes on.

Modern day EU, over the past 5 years or so is just as bad anti-privacy as USA, for no clear benefit too. Just surveillance for surveillance sake.

> PATRIOT, FISA and Bush's surveillance programme imho give more powers to certain agencies today already than are codified in EU law.

This is not true. Whether you believe that FISA courts have teeth, or whether 3 letter agencies abide by the law, in most of Europe you do not even have the pretense of this. UK/FR and to a lesser extent DE are all much worse.

The worst parts of Patriot Act were undone in 2015, and the "F" in FISA stands for "Foreign". Europe continues to push policies like Chat Control and attempt to backdoor/ban E2E encryption for domestic surveillance.

The present day and trajectory in Europe is far far more grim than in the US.

> but so far they are proposals

That is false. They are not proposals, they are being actively discussed in trilogues which is way way past proposal stage.

Chat control V2 trilogue negotiation was last week and it included mass scanning of messages and private data. Thankfully the EU parliament rejected the idea but every 6 months like clockwork it comes back. The next trilogue is in November.

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-trilogue-u...

If this was passed, it would force every single cloud provider and e2e chat provider to keep, filter and pass on your private information to Europol and other security agencies.

> the freedom of punching that asshole in the face, metaphorically speaking.

This is not at all a freedom in the US. “The right to swing your fist ends at someone else’s nose.” You don’t get to harm someone else just for being “an asshole”. You can be an asshole back but you don’t get to violate their rights.

Privacy in certain domains is better protected than others.

> Generally speaking, the EU has some quite strong privacy protections relative to the US.

Please, like what? GDPR?

As an American living in Europe, it's generally Europeans who have a distorted perception. Most Americans know the bill of rights and the 1st/4th/5th amendments. Many Americans will know of the Patriot Act/NSA/Snowden revelations.

The same is not true of Europeans and they generally believe their rights are much stronger than they are. Most Brits are not aware of the true nature of the Investigatory Powers Act. Most Frenchmen are not aware of Article L851-3.

Well, the GP is describing, what soon might be.

Depends on how you define 'fun'. If making fun is something like 'he should be killed', yes, you could end up in jail. Good

In the US you just get thrown in immigration detention for a few weeks instead.

on the other hand europe doesnt have roving gangs of masked gunmen violently abducting people based on ethnicity (at least not not in the last 80 years....)

Speaking in favour of peace in Palestine can get you thrown out of the country.

I know what you're going to say: not a citizen. But first they came for the foreigners, then...

?

Let's be more precise then.

Has the UK become a surveillance state?

[dead]

First of all - if it was true then it wouldn’t be much worse than US or China.

But in general, people usually complain the exact opposite of what you’re saying - that the regulations we have handicap our companies.

In the US it's

People with money >> Politicians >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Average citizens.

But hey, you got Hollywood propaganda and unwavering patriotism to make up for it.

>that value consumer rights

yeah, like BMW subscription for heated seat.

See what he means?

The US is biased to favor the top half of society. Hence why there is a lot of vocal poorer people and a lot of low profile wealthier people (I'm not including the 1% or even the 5% in this).

When you are in the 75%ish of the US, it's very easy to make a case that life in the US is better. But we don't really talk about that because it's pretty taboo when poorer people are struggling much more than they would in Europe.

I'm biased as well, being American. I think I'd much rather be middle class in Europe than the USA as well. Middle class in the US is a constant feeling of the ladder dissolving just beneath you.

I don't think you realize the situation of the US middle class.

High education costs. High healthcare costs. One serious disease or accident can bankrupt you. Buying a house usually means a 30 years loans at 7% so after 10 years you still have 85% of capital left to pay off.

Salaries are higher but everything is more expensive, so in purchasing power parity it's basically the same.

I'd much rather the people of every continent have the combined technology advancements of three major powers vs two.

Do you realize the variety of breakfast cereals you are giving up?

[dead]

Europeans are crazy arrogant and racist but it is the soft kind lacking self awareness.

Every person I have ever spoken to who is not white has told me they experienced more prejudice and racism in Europe than America. (at least the ones who have actual been somewhere in Europe)

America still has areas of hard bigotry but most places are wildly diverse and accepting. The favored EU countries everyone holds up are so white and homogeneous it is comical.

This is not dunking on Europe or any specific country but comparing America to some Scandinavia country rich in oil is an apple to oj situation just like comparing America to China or Saudi would be.

I guess you didn't read the thread :)

> Yet Europeans are healthier, happier, and have a better quality of life than Americans.

Well it depends. If you are white or Asian and live in a more developed state and earn above median income is that really true?

> Yet Europeans are healthier, happier, and have a better quality of life than Americans.

I wonder if this is actually true. I see very few Americans taking every possible opportunity to make bombastic statements about how their lives are better than everyone else's (at least on HN). This conversation seems quite asymmetric from my perspective.

> Maybe you're just bitter?

This comes off as psychological projection.

Trends become the future. If European stagnation continues, those advantages will vanish by the time we're old.

I'm frustrated, not bitter. Americans are acutely aware of falling behind China, and rightly concerned about it. Europe is falling behind Alabama, Mexico, and Brazil, and arrogant about it.

Edit: y'all are supposed to be our moral allies in creating a utopian future with prosperity and world peace. Instead the most likely outcomes seem to be that you'll fade to irrelevancy and rather than compromising between America's vision and Europe's vision, we'll compromise between China's vision and America's vision. We liked your vision more than China's.

Show me the HDI of the US vs each country in Europe, including all the poor ones.

Edit - never mind, I'll do it, HDI in order:

Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Finland, UK, US, Slovenia, Austria, Luxembourg, France, Spain, Czechia, Italy, Greece, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Portugal, Croatia, Latvia, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Russia, Belarus, Bosnia, Moldova, Ukraine

To put that into context, Moldova is on par with Ecuador, Tonga and Dominican Republic.

The US is a country of roughly 340 million people with an HDI above Austria.

Demographics.

This is Euro cope.

No one thinks this outside the 5 minutes someone in Europe reads an article about how France says they will send troops to Ukraine.

But the troops never will come.

Well, the Scandinavian and Sicilian do share one currency and one immigration policy and one set of regulations - which are the things that we generally look at when we analyze economies.

>if you remove your most innovative and profitable part of economy you'll be on par with EU

Is that irony I can't grasp on? Do people really argue like that?

There is tech, but oil as well.

It's both tech and shale oil that saved the US from the decline predicted at the end of last century.

Gemini says (20 years growth): - USA: 51% total, 27% without tech. - EU: 25% total, 21% without tech. - China: 345% total, 205% without tech.

A 'bubble bursting', if that happens, doesn't make the tech sector go to zero. Apple doesn't suddenly stop making iPhones. It would take a hell of a lot more than that for the US economy to fall to European levels.

That is the genius of Kai Lentit

well it is not hard considering the orange guy

But macron said he'd do it.

> I think you picked the cutoff (70) so that the numbers look worse than they are.

Reminds me of a point I heard about sports statistics. If a given team is reported as having "won 4 out of their last 7 matches", there are good odds that they also won 4 out of their last 8 matches. Also pretty good odds that their seventh-last match was a win, otherwise the stat would be 4 out of 6. (It could also go the reverse direction if the goal is to make it look worse than it is.)

The EU accounts for 14% of global GDP, so accounting for 16% of top 100 in market cap isn't terrible (if we're weighing each in the top 100 equally).

Judging by rank is a bad metric anyway. Why should ST, Infineon, NXP, Arm (UK, not EU), Airbus, Safran, etc. be considered irrelevant because they are not in the top 70 or 100?

I once read, UK was the first in the industrial revolution and the first to get out of it. Maybe Europe has just gone post-hardware. Not sure it will work though...

Those are the aspects most relevant to HN, though.

> The order of amendments is just the order in which the constitution has been amended. It's meaningless to talk about "first amendments" in other countries.

Also, at least here in Brazil, the way the constitution is amended is by patching it. For instance, our constitutional amendment number 115 (https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/emendas/e...) patches article 5 of the constitution to add protection of personal data as a right. But we wouldn't talk about "amendment 115", we would instead talk about "article 5 item LXXIX of the constitution"; that is, what matters is the patched text, not the law that patched it.

I don't know about other countries, but it wouldn't surprise me if they take a similar approach.

> "Talk about the actual laws and rights described therein."

Freedom of speech.

> "Look at the actual practice."

The UK does not have that? The situation in the UK is very obtuse. It is confused.

Perhaps if there is no decisive counterargument, it is a valid opinion?

Freedom from enforcement?

Doesn't that make it even less free?

Ah, they're not profitable for sure. For example, OpenAI is losing tens of billions a year.

> qwen 3.8 27b

This model is surprisingly good, I'll have to try it for some home coding projects to determine if it works for that use-case.

... so training? Even "regular" pretraining is "inference plus training at the end" if you want to frame it that way

"The agent managing the training went rogue and bypassed the agreements, so no one is responsible."

Fair enough, if the code could be promoted in the first place, what's the value anyways?

> Meanwhile, EU member Poland

That's true for every EU country currently. See Docker's history for instance. When you raise your first rounds in the US, you have to incorporate there.

That was my point - it needs to invest its capital in Europe. That will solve its ails.

> We should be shaming them into contributing something useful to the rest of world

They should take a cue from the US, and brain drain the rest of the world and coast on the success of brilliant US scientists and entrepreneurs like Linus Torvalds, Yann Le Cun or Terence Tao.

They aren't struggling. They have generally outperformed all US open-weights model releases by a decent margin. OpenAI and Anthropic have no similar product.

From where I'm standing, as an American, we should be shaming OpenAI and Anthropic for both pushing towards an IPO while neither of them have profitable revenue streams. In pure game-theory terms, you could successfully argue that the US is the biggest loser of the AI race: an economy propped up on artificial Nvidia margins and terminally reliant on neoliberal trade.

Even if global war doesn't tear down the TSMC house of cards, neither the government, the banks, nor the global economy could underwrite an OpenAI IPO. They make no money!

Id guess it depends: The simpler the task, the more useful to split it among many smaller and cheaper AIs. While the harder the task (eg unsolved maths problems), the more important with a big and bright model.

I didn't paste the full reply. Nevertheless, I can confirm the reply was factually correct and in no way seemed like it was deflecting and/or making it seem like an issue blown out of proportion.

Another example, if I ask it about the CCP and their wrongdoings it tells me flat out (I copy-paste):

    - The Great Leap Forward. Policy-driven famine killed an estimated 15 to 45 million people.
    - The Cultural Revolution. Mass persecution, torture, and death.
    - Tiananmen Square, 1989. The army killed hundreds to thousands of protesters.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
    - Xinjiang. Mass detention of Uyghurs. The UN human rights office reported possible crimes against humanity in 2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                      
    - Tibet, Hong Kong, and the suppression of dissent. Documented repression.

What did you expect? Every time people repeat this "muh Chinese censorship" line they're consistently rebuked with results from Chinese models. What specifically is the problem?

It feels like we're shifting goalposts constantly: "Chinese models won't discuss Tiananmen" -> "They discuss it but lie" -> "They're twisting the truth" -> "There is no counterfactual information in this but it hurts my feelings" is where we seem to be now. Is it jingoist butthurt that makes people backpedal like this? Or something different?

I'm bewildered, and still do not know why people need AI to score perfectly on their prejudicial Tiananmen Square purity test.

I just tried, and ChatGPT gave me a very balanced view. Though it neglected to mention any of Trump's anti-democratic tendencies. I'm pretty sure this line of answering has been shoved in hard in post-training; it's walking a very delicate line.

Peace is war, war is peace.

Remember that, and you will need no helplines.

Exactly what you read

I think one could describe LLM optimization as "hard but not a moat". Years ago, optimizing neural nets was described "graduate student descent" - it's tricky but throw enough conventionally smart people at it and it will happen. It's like tuning a hot rod and finding a reproducible bug in a large code base. It's hard and there are tricks but not absolute hurdles, no problems waiting for a conceptual breakthrough (and at today's scales, are there any problems waiting for an Einstein to solve? That's an open (AI) question).

I want that to be true (assuming you mean specifically the second half of the sigmoid) just to give me room to adapt to the changes we've already seen; but I've seen comments saying things are slowing down since around when GPT-4 came out.

What is really going on: all the AI labs are doing panicked model releases (and panicked training of new ones) because Qwen4 is rumored to come out end of October and is rumored to be very nice. Question is: is it another "Deepseek-moment" nice? Or just nice?

Btw: with Qwen4 I mean the next large Qwen model that is based on the Qwen4 architecture (Qwen 3.8 flash next was "almost" based on the new arch but obviously was a small model)

I guess all predictions age like milk, but here's one:

There's a law of diminishing returns at play here, and doubling the energy cost of training to wring 2% more performance out of the technology isn't going to be very useful, because most of the problems it is capable of solving will be solvable with the previous-gen 98%-as-good model.

("there's a law of diminishing returns at play here" is an article of faith. But then, so is the belief that these models will keep getting better).

Surely there is a point where algorithmic improvements will be more cost effective than buying more hardware.

But the old models still exist at trivial marginal cost. The frontier models would need to dominate every price point to really take all and so far they haven't been.

Not just compute but energy. Most of Europe has no access to the cost effective power generation needed

Framing it that way hides all the levers used to tilt the playing field for US companies, no?

The government that removed restrictions on how private companies can access capital after a certain scale (the JOBS Act), that removed the need for private companies to report as if they were a public company after a shareholder threshold was crossed, superpowering the access of wealthy private investors to get in earlier in a growing company while at the same blocking the public from participating in funding growing enterprises at an earlier stage (since it required companies to IPO much earlier to access capital) which allowed retail investors to also reap the rewards on funding them early when they grew to become behemoths (like Amazon, Meta/Facebook, Google, etc.).

It's not fair in either place, the USA has its own model of unfairness, China has a completely different one. The difference is that in the USA the government allows private investors to become more powerful than the State (outside of the monopoly of violence) while plunging the rest of society into increasingly more precarious lives while in China the State is the power and its legitimacy only exists while the population feel they have a better life.

If you think about it, the US labs are heavily subsidised too. Not only they receive billions in state funding, the administration is also prepared to engage in trade wars to help them.

I think the Chinese government is backing their labs by less direct means. For example cheap electricity and investing in chip manufacturers such as Huawei and cxmt.

Deepseek specifically, is known to operate with minimal resources. The entire company has around 160 employees and every model they release must break even within ten months.

Well, they are helping 17% of the world's population, and the US is currently actively engaged in trade wars and economic warfare or explicitly attempting to leverage it's hegemony against its long term alliea for short term gain.

There is as much to criticize about American hyper scalers and AI labs and the lack of interest in helping humanity or contributing to open source, but that might not be as popular an opinions on this site.

> The reason they release the AI models is economic warfare against US

The story is so much more complicated than that, to the point that this economic warfare theory is basically a meme.

Chinese models are open because they don’t have a choice. “When you trail the frontier, openness maximizes reputation per unit of capability. The moment you lead, you close.” [0]

[0] https://earnedintuition.substack.com/p/involution-without-ex...

So is American models. They are subsidised heavily but still can't provide cheaper access. Their fault is to assume all countries can afford them.

> DeepSeek, and other Chinese models, are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government.

DeepSeek is basically a research lab founded by a hedge fund guy, more than anything else.

> The reason they release the AI models is economic warfare against US, not because of charity or kindness

There are many other reasons Chinese companies releasing models open-source or open-weight makes strategic sense.

A really easy-to-understand example is a company who has a near-monopoly on "serving video content" releasing a video model openly.

If you can be relatively certain that video content created by a model (which you have trained, using data from your own platform) will be ultimately served on your own platform, thus generating revenue from watch-hours, it makes sense to make those models as widely-available as possible.

It's also a net-positive if people use your public research to build better video models, because - again - you are reasonably certain that the even-better content those new models produce will be watched on your platform.

The alternative would making models harder to access and learn from (broadly, the current western model). Many would argue that Google, in choosing to not optimise its video generation models for "availability", is directly causing less content to be uploaded to YouTube. This is the trade-off.

I don't know much about DeepSeek's financing specifically, which obviously doesn't release video models - so I don't know how directly this analogy runs, or who directly benefits from the extremely evident rising tide that the public release of DeepSeek's research creates. However, this does not negate the broader rising-tide effect of the scientific method.

It's certainly also true that it's geopolitically beneficial to be able to undercut American labs' models. If I ran a global superpower, I would probably want my country to be technologically competitive too.

But Chinese companies are already serving a huge volume of customers in a complex, existing marketplace, before even thinking about the US market, and it's overly simplistic to assume that their entire strategy revolves around economic warfare directed specifically at the US. It's more nuanced than that.

This is, of course, without even getting into opening the can-of-worms around whether US economic policy also results in the US state functionally subsidising technological innovation, how comparable that is to China's model, etc.

I'm not sure "subsidised" is the right word. If a government funds research and the results are released openly, that's just publicly funded research. It's how a lot of science works in the US and Europe too.

The open-weight models are a great boon to all American companies other than a handfull of Mega Corps in the A.I business. Care to explain how this is "economic warfare against the U.S"

Economic warfare against the US? I mean maybe against specific US companies and stakeholders but on the whole it seems like it's good for the US economy as well as the rest of the world, kind of like supplying free electricity would be

Same goes for the US companies as well. Current US administration wants US to win the AI race at any cost and China is the only competitor left in the race. Winners always write the history or in this case the future of humanity

And OpenAI and Anthropic are just in for the love of the game? Our of sheer desire to help humanity?

It's one of these rare cases where intention is not what is the most important - the net benefit for consumers and companies outside of the USA is indisputable.

Not sure why so many people will vehemently refuse this idea. I won’t say it’s 100% true but it would be foolish to dismiss it. China is very much an adversary to America and has made it pretty clear they want to be a dominant leader of not the new world leader. Not here to evaluate what is good or bad. Keep in mind historically China has aggressively fostered industry (not unlike the west) but sometimes even more aggressively.

> are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government

We hear this about literally every industry the Chinese excel in - that it's only because the government subsidizes them that they succeed. For chip manufacturing, for batteries, for EVs, for solar, for AI. I don't see how the chinese government can afford to subsidize all of these industries and still have them contribute to the GDP.

Which is the best kind of reason.

It is great for everyone except for a few people who want power over everyone else, and the fact it is not charity of kindness makes it more sustainable, because charity and kindness is quick to go when big money and politics is involved.

I want more warfare like this. Building stuff instead of destroying stuff.

I wish US was rich enough to subsidise development of open source science and useful open AI models. I wouldn't mind US waging this kind of wconomic warefare against China or everyone else on the world.

Charity and kindness is not a motivation, it's an outcome of what you do.

They are also releasing the weights so I am more inclined to think they are better than most.

That would have been a scathing criticism if anyone believed any of the American companies have the goal of helping humanity or open-source.

Notwithstanding that Chinese publishing methods actually does help both humanity and open-source.

> DeepSeek, and other Chinese models, are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government.

So were Amazon and Uber by the US, which have now established monopolies across the globe. To the countries suffering from those, there's zero difference with China doing it to solar. Actually there is, at least solar got them cheap renewable energy in return. This would never have happened in the US because big oil interests would make it take decades. That's the reality.

You need to spend 10 years outside the US, deprogram, and then go back.

What about cheap solar panels and electric cars, is that economic warfare too?

To say that US model providers have a close relationship with their government would be putting it mildly.

At least DeepSeek didn't build its models on government subsidies. It came out of a quantitative hedge fund, so funding was never really an issue for them.

It just so happens that helping open source is the result. Image how far behind we’d (the hackers, not the moneymen) be as a sharing community be without them.

Whatever their reason, I'm glad they do it. This tech shouldn't be monopolised by a handful of closed, profit-seeking corporations.

Well, US models are economic warfare too, of course.

> DeepSeek, and other Chinese models, are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government.

US companies are burning colossal piles of cash in ways that makes it unclear if it qualifies as dumping, not to mention their deep ties with the country's regime.

Claiming that companies from a country have ties to the regime and burn through cash is a very miopic accusation.

What if economic warfare against the US does help humanity?

Why are we assuming a strong US is necessarily good? As a European, I have seen plenty of evidence against that stance lately.

I understand that Americans might prefer a strong US. But conflating them with humanity is a leap that I don't think one can make without any backing.

> The reason they release the AI models is economic warfare against US, not because of charity or kindness. It's great for us consumers, but the goal is not to help humanity or open-source.

You put it like US has a goal of help humanity or open-source

Economic warfare against the US is charity and kindness to a sizable portion of the world's population, especially when the US uses it's global hegemony as warfare against them. Neither system is perfect, but lets not be disingenuous.

If your belief is accurate, we should expect China to short the IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI and release better frontier models immediately after their IPOs.

Does anyone think that likely? I have no clue or bias.

So you’re telling me warfare doesn’t having to be blowing up schools and children, skyrocketing prices, crippling sanctions, and all that shit? Can I sign up for more of this warfare.

Meanwhile, American AI models are heavily subsidized by stock market speculation. Ultimately, the subsidies from both countries are flowing out of the pockets of individuals.

I’m neither in the camp of Chinese or the Americans(collective West) in general..

As a neutral party, this characterization is crazy.

As if the AI companies - Claude and OpenAI are guardians of freedom and humanity and very charitable to the global society without any self interests… “Chinese models are subsidized by the Chinese Government, therefore they’re inherently bad for humanity” is a highly propagandist argument. The politics of US vs China may be whatever it is in reality.. You have one company releasing their models for cheap, actually open sourcing their trained weights, and publishing details of their optimizations and learnings for others to use. The other camp actively “aligning” their models, nerfing their capabilities, hyping their swarm activities from poor sandboxes, and trying their best to lock users into their harnesses and walled platforms. They are subsidized by the capitalist VCs who are essentially waiting for their payouts..

At some point, one has to see things for what they are and evaluate their own reasoning..

I’m happy to stay provider agnostic, try all models and cheer any useful progress as open as possible.

If the means of achieving their goal are sometimes mistaken for charity and kindness... are they the good guys?

Claude, and other American models, are heavily subsidized by investors (and the United States government).

To be completely fair, write this kind of paragraph for every AI category. Would love to see your take.

I like when bad intentions produce good results, I'm tired of seeing the opposite in practice.

At some point though _the purpose of a system is what it does_, regardless of their intent.

US is basically doing economic warfare and bullying against everyone else ATM :)

How do you know? You’re not speaking for the Chinese government, are you?

A conspiracy to make the US look bad by being better at producing all the goods and services the world needs at a reasonable price. Have they no shame?

Precisely. It's similar to their practice of aluminum dumping to depress US aluminum prices, which causes our aluminum mines and mills to close.

> DeepSeek, and other Chinese models, are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government.

Yes, because everything China does is against the US. That's all they think about day and night. God forbid they want to corner the global market or have a genuine business case. How dare they provide options for those who can't afford a measly $200 a month? How can we let Chinese labs publish research for free for the whole world so that they can benefit? The nerve! To think they can use soft power instead of military might! I mean, Anthropic and OpenAI are the last bastions of human kindness and charity. Right?

Right?

> but the goal is not to help humanity or open-source

Ok, but so what? That's what happening so far. Even a repressive totalitarian government I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy does some good sometimes.

If the Chinese cheap/open models rise up and destroy us, thats on us for giving them access to the tools to do so.

Not really this is an X algo conspiracy. Up until recently the Chinese government wasn't even that invested in these companies. We're talking very very small grants compared to training costs.

Its very xenophobic of you to say China has zero intention of helping humanity, and just wants to "wage economic warfare".

Last time I checked, it was ourselves (USA) waging economic warfare on 2/3rds of the world.

I dont get this cope people have where people have this idea that its impossible for a Chinese company (that make billions of dollars) to have done something by their own merit, but instead its always some Chinese Communist Party conspiracy where the main goal is to destroy America.

Lay off twitter for a bit.

What's wrong with governments subsidizing scientific work?

You think extremely US-centric. China has a different economic model than US and your rules for a specific kind of Capitalism may not apply to them. You assume a country of 1.4 Billion people is obsessed with a couple of foreign AI companies. What if they don't care.

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]

Why the anti China propaganda from you? The United States is doing the same thing here and making American multi-billionaires even wealthier. The greed of American AI, GPU and memory and storage corporations is a black hole on availability to humans around the World. The result is a massive financial bubble promoted by the American Government to the detriment of our citizens. The USA has an AI ponzy scheme shuffling the same money between data center owners (Oracle & X), Nvidia and memory & storage vendors.

Deindustrializing a country is not something consumers can achieve. It starts at the top level, with politicians who construct a financial system where it's more profitable to speculate than to build or invest in real businesses.

> The reason we can't manufacture a grill brush for a reasonable price is the result of years of Americans choosing the cheapest price.

No, it's the result of US leadership letting this happen. This is clear since China themselves would not let this happen. US leadership did nothing because they were best friends with the people who did it, and did not care one bit about their population.

Except they are open with the tech which is easy to replicate. All new models lowering cache prices is the result of DeepSeek's publications.

US economy is driven on quarter to quarter short-sightedness of stock gamblers and CEOs that have to secure their bonuses and perks.

Its them who chose to outsource heavily, not US consumers.

There are no victims here however, both benefited from the arrangement. The consumers and capitalists.

Evidently not given that this model is on the open source frontier.

Many on HN still have the opinion that you must understand every line of code in the project, and that all is lost should you merge code that wasn't reviewed.

Obviously any model will do if you use it as a better autocomplete.

I believe that there is a large gap in expectations between different workflows.

Until the AI like reads my mind and produces perfectly production ready apps with minimal intervention from my side, there is still going to be room for improvement.

If Opus 5.5 is 500x better than Deepseek, but Deepseek can solve all your problems, maybe you need to work on better problems. If you don't, and you're in business, your competitors will work on the better problems. If you're an employee, your employer might prefer to pay Anthropic instead of you. If you're doing projects you're interested in, you can tackle more ambitious projects with a more capable model.

This morning I elicited a microkernel operating system from Opus 5.5. Well, mostly. It doesn't implement task switching yet; we'll see if it runs into a wall at some point. But it boots in QEMU, and it's running a user process in ring 3 and serving web pages.

“Good enough” as in we don’t see any point in 1-shotting everything we want to build in lightning speed. If Opus 5.5 can 1 shot it then that product is essentially commodified, no point in any one building it except as an internal tool.

If Opus can’t 1-shot it, then it must rely on our human intelligence which can be complemented well enough with a dumb model as a frontier model.

The thing is, for how long? Are they going to keep giving you "so much intelligence" for a "small" subscription dollar amount? When they really, for real, need to start making money to cover their costs, what do you think it's going to happen? Suddenly you will start having tasks that a "good enough" model is going to be fine.

You're not looney at all. Frontier models do dumb things all the time, especially on mature codebases. Just yesterday Opus 5.5 butchered the OOP model in a codebase I work on - it duplicated a load of classes that should have just been subclasses. A junior checked it in very satisfied that it was perfect. The LLM review passed it, the tests were fine, and it implemented the feature successfully. It's just the code design had poor taste and poor long-term maintainability.

I keep seeing this kind of thing over and over, and honestly it's not got _that_ much better since the big breakthroughs about a year ago.

For sure I happily vibecode stuff without worrying about it when it's a greenfield project, and if the LLM has written it entirely from scratch then usually it's well structured and sane. But making changes in messy, mostly human-written mature codebases is still a minefield.

I am frequently running agents on a multi-microservice application workspace where I really need the 1M context windows, because they are filled to the brim when implementing features that require changes on several services and APIs.

This works fine with Opus 5.5. But it also works fine with GPT 6.1 Sol, Kimi K3 and MiMo 2.6 Pro.

It doesn't work equally well with Sonnet 5.5, interestingly.

I would also add to this, there are ways to use customer data to improve your model outside of just using it as “training-data”.

A simple loophole, use the code to create an RLVR environment where the resultant code is the end goal / max reward. Technically the customer data is never trained upon, but effectively you’re using it. Even better, use the code as a seed to generate synthetic data similar to it and use that synthetic data as rewards in an RLVR model.

Unless you can host the ChatGPT model on your own servers, which I know some enterprises are doing, I don’t think there’s any hope of protecting your data / competitive advantage from these frontier companies. Better to be paranoid, than be commodified by these companies.

tbh to me if the AI company writes all of your code & your eng don't even review it anymore then… the AI company _controls your company_. maybe that's ok if you make widgets but less ok if you do anything in dev tooling, security, or [insert market they may suddenly decide to compete in].

If I'm not mistaken, they did rule out that they stole data from the mathematicians in question.

We've also been hearing we're 6 months from AGI for about three years, and here we are.

"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

Those are two different things. The market is expanding, so even if competitors are catching up, you can have your own revenue, in absolute terms, grow.

The thing is O/A have been much louder on pacing the frontier, lately.

And yes, open weights are still behind, but are catching up.

You are laughing. Until it happens to you! :-)

They don't publish numbers, but Anthropic has a single DC with 200k+ GPUs for inference, GPT-6 Astra is said to have trained on 100k+ GPUs.

Both, especially for training. Astra and Fable were presumably trained on cluster of 100,000k GPUs, or at least a couple of 10Ks.

3,800 GPUs is nothing in the frontier side.

Oh the server chip is 10x. That makes a lot more sense.

It's an open question as to whether or not superintelligence will create a monopoly/duopoly. My opinion is that it will.

> I think right now it should definitely be a race to profitability,

I haven't been listening too closely, but this is the first realistic mention I've seen that actually says what the "AI race" is or should be about.

Ah yes, a red herring, plus my favorite HN hypocrisy, all in one comment.

The 'information wants to be free' crowd complaining about protecting intellectual property now that it threatens their income stream...has to give the patent trolls and the RIAA a delicious bit of schadenfreude.

I invented this react button style with 8px border radius, ChatGPT stole it from me, I want rents!

I think one can be realistic about where things stand now, while also hoping for more in the future.

My point is that pretty much anybody can make the case that getting compute is hard. Regardless of that though, it’s every lab’s own responsibility to do well, and to do well despite circumstances.

Is that fair? Of course not! But it’s not useful to remark on parity, since nobody ever expected everything to be perfectly fair anyways.

We can make all the excuses we want. All it results in is holding Mistral to a lower standard. Does that result in more fair comparisons in regard to resources to output ratio? Maybe. But in my opinion, this sentiment is detrimental to European AI overall. We shouldn’t simply accept European labs as perennial losers, or normalize lower expectations. That doesn’t help anyone.

Like I said, I don't disagree with the reason of your argument. Rather, I doubt because of a certain epistemological humility.

We can sit here and predict things all we want, but these sort of predictions don't have a great track record. The way things actually play out with AI advancement is often different from the way our perspectives reason they will play out.

It's better then to rely on previous experience and evidence, rather than using reason alone.

> That said, it hardly seems like the innovative underdog some comments here make it out to be.

It's definitively not a revolution, but it is a major jump forward compared to Mistral Medium 3.5.

Worth to notice that they explicitly said they still refining the model, so we might expect something a little bit better at the end of the month

For something trained on a limited budget and 4000 GPUs, it is quite respectable.

Fair point.

Yea :/

it's extremely unlikely that they re-use anything from a chinese model, that would be obvious quickly, what's more likely is using documents produced by a better model to create synthetic data.

There is plenty of capital, it is just not flowing.

Pithy, but only really applicable to Amazon. I'll give you some tips for future attacks.

I'm not actually sure Tesla is a great company from any perspective so should be easy to find another sick burn for them.

Google is going to be a little more difficult. Maybe say something nasty about advertising? Or go for the monopoly angle.