impulser_

Good. These have been basically useless for the past few generations of models, and most of the time made the model perform worst.

This is basically the end of OpenAI hardware. This is by far worst than the Waymo vs. Uber lawsuit which killed the Uber self driving project.

Also if you are a business using OpenAI models, I would highly suggest you do not because they are most likely looking at your code and IP.

I don't mean banned from the site Reddit, I mean banned from subreddits. Go into /r/politics and post an opinion that not far left.

So you okay with the government banning open source models, and making a list of who can have access to intelligence based on who they like?

That just doesn't seem like a world I want to live in. I prefer a world where everyone has the same access to the same intelligence.

Go back to the beginning of the internet, you would be for limiting the internet access to those the government likes?

I was around in the early days of the internet when Google dorking was a thing, you could prompt Google and find exploits into hundreds and thousands of websites, servers, ect including government website.

This isn't about national security, it about power and controlling it.

Again, if you think we the people are getting access to AGI you're a fool.

These models aren't even that smart and they are already trying to control them and lock them down to a handful of people.

Then these executive and VC wonder why people hate AI and are against them.

Because the future is heading toward intelligence for the rich and you stuck with whatever model they want you to have.

The next step is banning open source models.

The future is not looking so bright if these models are already going locked down to whoever the government what's to have them.

This is no different than the government banning books because they don't want you to learn.

You got to miss spell these days or people assume your ai :)

It's because they do things that is why they score differently. Coding hardness add features for user experience not for agent efficiency. If they did all the coding hardnesses would be using bash and code mode and letting the agents write code to perform tasks but this doesn't work because you want humans in the loop. You want users to be able to approve and deny writes. You want uses to see edits. So you have to build tool for these. It's hard to show diffs when the agent is just using bash.

Because there is literally nothing special about coding hardnesses. The models are doing all the lifting. It just user experience that separates them.

A coding hardness with just bash outperforms Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, Pi ect. The added features are just user experience features.

Yeah and their belief are fucking crazy and dangerous. They are literally sabotaging their users. They built in malware into their model if you prompt it about training a fucking AI model. It doesn't tell you, no it literally sabotages you by editing your prompt and intentionally goes against your request.

You want fucking nut jobs like this building models?

It's one thing to build safeguards on your model and have it prompt the user back. I'm sorry I can't help you with this request. Chinese models do this for some requests.

It's another thing to actively try to make the model perform worst for your user on purpose because it asked the model to do something you, the model creator, didn't like.

Imagine someone is asking a logical medical question and the model swaps the prompt and purpose being less intelligent and gives bad advice to this person.

How do these people not understand they are stupid.

It's kinda weird to think the Chinese AI labs might be more trust worthy than the US labs.

- Anthropic is ran by a bunch of nut jobs.

- OpenAI is ran by a guy you can't trust.

I don't even know if we should include DeepMind, Meta, or xAi in the conversation of AI labs at this point since they can't produce models better than Chinese labs.

Every model release is just proof that AGI will most likely only be for the rich. We are a few years into LLMs and majority of people are already getting priced out of intelligence from LLMs and these are no where near AGI.

Yeah, but the models are running in Google Cloud which makes sense they are based on Gemini.

I think the last thing Google wants to do is get on the bad side of their largest partners.

This is probably why Google had to rent compute from SpaceX. They needed to free up NVIDIA GPUs for Apple so they probably moved internal workloads to SpaceX compute.

They are using Google Cloud.

https://security.apple.com/blog/expanding-pcc/?linkId=100000...

"Now, we are collaborating with Google and NVIDIA to run new Apple Intelligence workloads on Google Cloud, extending our industry-leading PCC privacy commitments to third-party data centers for the first time."

This is equities + bonds which are pretty liquid assets.

I don't think you understand the size of the US capital market. We are talking probably ~150 trillion.

It's easy as fuck for Google to raise this money because they are a money printing business. They are the most profitable company in the world, so for anyone this is basically the same as buying US debt.

Yeah, but Google has the money for this. They are quite literally the most profitable company in the world. They are only raising because they don't want to harm there other businesses buy eating up their capital for this.

Why do you think there will only be one winner?

"models that 99.9% of the world cares about aren't."

Software engineers aren't 99.9% of the world.

"If all of this was done to better humanity, AI development would be done in public, data would be legally obtained, models would be released for free, access wouldn't be gatekept behind ever increasing subscription costs."

The vast majority of AI development is public. There are papers literally every single day to read. In fact everything you need to build Claude and GPT models is public. Thanks to Google, DeepSeek, and all the other research labs. There are more research labs than there are closed shops. In fact there really is only one Anthropic, and lately maybe OpenAI. Google still releases papers all the time on AI.

There are more open source models than closed source models and all of them are accessible without a subscription. Yeah you still need to pay for them, but hey as we build out infrastructure and more time is put into efficient models today will easily run on person compute of the future.

Harnesses aren't really going to change much of the performance on models like Opus, and GPT.

You literally can just give the model a bash tool and it will do just fine in fact it will most likely do better than majority of harnesses due to how well models are at bash.

The model do all the lifting. It really doesn't matter which harness you use.

People need to stop thinking that LLMs actually know what they are. They don't. They don't know their Qwen, They don't know they are Opus. They don't even know they are an LLM.

This is why literally every single model's system prompt starts with something like:

"You're Claude Opus a large language model from Anthropic"

No. GPT models follow instructions significantly better than Claude models.

You tell it too research a repo to find a piece of code it will. Claude will just read the README and guess.

Crazy they bring up honest, when Claude models are literally known for straight up lying about things it has done and tries to act like it did what you asked.

I have tested almost every language and Go is pretty good but for some reason LLMs get paranoid over races and just start spamming locks next thing you know every fucking struct has mutexes and every function has locks lol.

The best language I have seen an LLM use was Kotlin. It actually surprised me how well it wrote the language. I wrote a project in it and I think I didn't have to correct it once. Like I was seriously impressed. I just wish Kotlin had better tooling so I didn't have to use gradle or maven lol.

Jarred said this had nothing to do with Mythos or Anthropic.

Yeah, maybe these aren't good guesses. I was basing it off CapEx and Elon's tweet about them. Maybe C2 isn't completely filled yet.

Well Colossus 1 has 230k GPUs, including 30k GB200s and Colossus 2 has 550k GB200s & GB300s.

So my guess on costs would be like ~$10B for Colossus 1, and Colossus 2 would be like ~20b.

They are. This is from their "Chief Compute Officer".

https://x.com/nottombrown/status/2057194829986300375

"in May 2026, we entered into Cloud Services Agreements with Anthropic PBC (“Anthropic”), an AI research and development public benefit corporation, with respect to access to compute capacity across COLOSSUS and COLOSSUS II. Pursuant to these agreements, the customer has agreed to pay us $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, with capacity ramping in May and June 2026 at a reduced fee"

Anthropic is paying them 1.25 billion per month to serve Claude in their data centers. That's more revenue than Starlink. In fact that's their largest revenue stream lol.