minraws

That's the point I believe fast local 2-4 user service for cheap on very large models.

You have to pretend it's for servers to keep investors happy, it would be banks and similar with in house servers that have to run local large models buying these for experiments and cybersecurity. Likely.

Yes. And only 5-8 nations will have these models same as the number that have nukes of their own.

Just checked their subscription is still North America only, I guess I will keep myself and my company with claude...

These regional lockdowns are making me feel funky, I feel like I should just use open models if others start playing at this game as well.

I was/am fine with Chinese companies offering cheaper subscriptions in China because ofc. But this is just weird, you could always charge me more let me try the damn thing, atleast it's own open router it seems like.

Initial impressions, interesting, it generated a pretty ok result for my prompt need to run a larger task but don't want to burn money so will wait for someone to burn their subscription and try running some opus 5.5 comparisons.

If you can spend your way to Frontier LLMs even if it's a few hundred Billion that means it's a commodity same as nuclear or electricity or telecom.

This is the entire point here, give it a couple years every nation on the planet with 20-40B in funding would have their own champions with post Fable level performance.

I work in a neolab/ai product company with LLMs all day. If I don't know what's been happening I am really not sure who does.

This is not true, most software can't be reverse engineered even if you had all of the source code, much less if you just have the binary.

Functionality piles on top of each other, products are such a garbled mess with fixes built on top of shaky grounds all over.

20% of software is code, 30% is design/strategy/marketing/telemetry/usage, rest of the 50% is lots and lots of stuff baked into software from user feedback over the decades.

Any software product that isn't in a similar balance is just crap to use, for instance Windows it's 20-30% code, 60-70% marketing/ads and the rest 10-20% bug fixes..

There is 0 user feedback being addressed.

In my opinion, AI is the thing that should be a wake up call for software companies to actually build on top of feedback proactively and with sharp intent.

My thinking is the judges weren't familiar with what a footage like this would actually look like and they might be open to accepting minor video edits for making it interesting.

It's always a slippery slope to judge things as AI first and ask questions laters. I myself feel like I might have started to attribute human effort to AI, and that honestly is the truly sad part.

That's the thing though, he has $600M dollars worth of reasons to bend.

People think that money makes you strong, maybe it does but only upto like a couple million dollars if at all, well whatever amount will give you a lifetime of comfortable life, after that it's all about how to preserve or make more money.

The more you have the more reason you have to do the wrong thing.

I think you misunderstand the OP, the issue isn't the work if AI can do it we should still pool together and not waste tokens on the same problem 10-100x times because 100 people are doing the same thing in parallel.

Since it's not educational as it used to be, if you built your own version of n64 emulator number 10143 you got something out of it you learnt some interesting stuff, learnt software development, hardware etc.

Now we are literally all just taking a magic machine pouring money on one end getting half baked output the other but no progress is being made on money is being wasted. Since even if 1 person had built it everyone would have had access already.

This is the same wave of slop coding/vibemaxxing we had a few months ago where everyone was building product X for the 1 million-th time without any actual progress being made.

Math has a similar problem now, before if 1000 people tried to solve a problem they all grew from that experience, the LLM is not growing/learning anything from this effort.

All we are doing is burning resources for our pleasure, I say that as someone who has now written his own compiler, vcs and browser stack, with vibe coding, though largely I would claim I have used and tried to read the code, clean it up, to learn from it where different things break.

But even this feels absurd waste of resource imagine all of us collectively burning 200$ per month plans which assuming a at cost pricing we are all burning 200$ of electricity each month to do what exactly? Some folks are on their 10th subscription that means most people are burning 1000-2000$ of ultra cheap energy generally sourced from a mix of gas/oil turbines burning away at big data centers these days.

We could all solve it by making a site.. cough github.. and not duplicating work.. cough..

But somehow because it's easy no one seems to care.

I am hardly against software progress, and if AI gets better we will have better software (because most people write horrible software most of the time) so I am happy about it, to an extent that I can be, with my profession feeling somewhat challenged.

But given I have always worked as a fixer of broken stuff it's very much also feels fine to me. Either way I am very much against these 200-500 dollar plans that allow you to burn hundreds of dollars of energy for little productive gain duplicating the same work 100th time.

I am sure software developer using 100-200$ plans just for work can get more out of it. And it's probably making up for the effort they would have put in their work otherwise.

If memory prices cool, in about 2 years, Micron will stop new projects, they have done it before.

Especially given CXMT has been able to scale up much faster than what most people expected, only reason their isn't a bigger impact is modern HBM is hard to CXMT even today.

We are likely to see supply double in the next 3 years, but demand even out with optimizations, cooling of data center demand, and most importantly moving some of the dram to flash demand instead which is much easier to produce and scale.

Why is everyone making their own code execution agent runtime engines I have an entire project built on top of openshell already, why not first come up with a sandboxing policy design, like unix did, and then build on top of that.

Currently all project do tend to agree on what and how they work but certain things being different makes porting tedius, if all of them have a bare minimum subset common amongst them it would be much easier to switch, and validate security surface area.

I feel like there are more vulnerabilities in this vibe coded slop sandboxes, and it's more likely everyone one of us trusting them to build projects around them will shoot our foot off once a cve is hit in one that's common in all of them but since they are all slop copies someone will have to figure out how they apply to all others and then manually fix it properly, and if one of them makes a CVE public it will leave dozens of these runtimes open to exploits.

I wish the best to my future self with regards to security I feel like we are completely screwed. Since we can no longer depend on upstream for security.

Overpriced crap, local models are better than this, it's also dumber than Luna for some reason, and Jev is definitely ~2-3x cheaper than this.

I am sure people will be able to use it, but if LLM progress is anything like before we will have Jev 2 in about a month.

Training a local model like Jev with some learnings that can be extremely cheap to host shouldn't take that long either.

So I honestly don't see the point of this, other than to put something out.

Although that does seem like OpenAI's strength turn around slop products and iteratively improve and try to out compete others in everything.

Only 2 things they have clearly given up on are Video models(no moat, copyright nightmare) and Music.

And it makes sense why. I feel like they will compete with even the no-name Dog, if the Dog launched a successful marketing video of an AI product.

I have seen this often in SF startups, heck I work for them, but man this is extreme.

But honestly all I see are long term price wars, I don't understand how this is a sustainable business strategy.

Or maybe that's the point... Who knows.

Alright does this also mean we are detaching some of the google specific stuff and or are more accepting of open standards related changes?

Though tbh I don't have much to complain about GVisor project, one of the nicer projects I have worked more with other things though but it's not that bad.

> He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.

I haven't had this experience I have found a lot of people who burnt the damn house down get hired in a company for a similar role in a few months especially CEOs and executives. Including large companies, I had someone I know in a c suite role who burnt a few other companies to join competitors now working in Tesla and a friend who burnt the bridges with supposedly half the SF who is still employed in a similar c-suite role in SF.

I really don't think people care unless you are a nobody sofware developer who tried to do the same perhaps, mostly because I can't prove it.

It seems to have happened in July.

Correction: they only prove exposure to American media/culture... I could solve captcha and understand most of it from having seen a dozen or so American shows and movies over my teenage years... Even before I ever travelled to America.

But you don't need to be taxed in actual dollar value you can be taxed in percentage of your share ownership. It might not work with real estate but with stock this is trivial

Why can't govt block the sale of stocks? It's not like you would be selling non digitalized assets, govts often freeze and reverse stock sales/trades when they find it to be illegal already.

It's harder for private companies sure, but who will stand in the way of govts if they said we will sanction your if you buy X or Y company?

This entire argument doesn't really hold IMHO

Absolutely ridiculous statement, it's not an accurate measure but it's definitely a good measure of money.

If you have 100B to your name even if it's post IPO stock in a possibly ponzi company that's your current wealth and you can easily convert a staggering portion of it into material realized wealth depending on several factors.

If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?

The value may not be exactly convertible agreed so let's just force everyone to book all gains every year, and force sell a net percent of your share.

Not 100B$ of share, but 2% of 100 Million units of stock that you own. Why does this not work?

If I take 2% of your shares why can't it work the same way? I can then pick and sell it over the next year or two however I see fit, in case of govt they can slowly sell back this share to not affect the prices too much.

I am baffled by the fact that we have a tractible quantity and people call it hard to use to measure money.

Paintings, Jewels, etc. are what's truly the hard part of the wealth equation not the stocks, which is over 99% of what a wealthy billionaire owns.

I am not even considering pro or against taxes on billions people make but it's ridiculous to say stocks aren't money? Then what is money really... Currency is also traded, it's value can also go up or down....

Because then it would be a big club, but most wouldn't be in it.

To clarify: for a large number of topic I find this completely fair and valuable to first have to build trust. But getting your research paper in front of other humans on a aggregation website seems like the one place where this for me falls apart.

Today any one from any corner of the world from any educational or non education place publish stuff, well moderation is tight and often it won't get through but I know a few friends who aren't in academia that have a paper up there who wouldn't have been as easily able to get a paper on anywhere else.

Maybe that's not a genuine concern but that often used to be the case and still is in a lot of invite first clubs/groups. I know credible people in the field who were and are working in relative isolation which leads to not being able to participate in sharing of ideas.

The question is not of technical difficulty though, most hacks are trivial or within reasonable limits for most motivated solo actors, much less state level actors, but a company without any of that hacking into govt systems is breach of trust and should be treated the same way it would have been if a human had actually committed a breach.

This isn't a question of OpenAI was the only one who could have done it, it about who did it.

The same way having a gun doesn't make one guilty, shooting someone with a gun even if unintentionally is a crime (unless ofc in self defense but I don't think Australia has the ability to breach OAI).

>> Sorry, I didn't get this? What was the incorrect call you made?

Talking about people's inability to read rather than just pointing out that the article pointed at something else.

yeah but the us folks aren't working out of SF and generally these projects have mostly flat pay structures (unsure if that exactly fits but a few comments make it seem like it checks out)

European safety nets, and government grants have helped open source projects a lot, and this is a big reason almost all of these projects end up being developed/maintained by folks from EU. Even if the sponsorships could hire 2-3x as much man power elsewhere in the world.

Another big thing is govt aligned sponsorships are not for software but for generating jobs/work within their borders.

Not in 2026.

Summarizing here for my dear friends, the guy on the other end managed to fine tune a model gpt-3.5-fine-tune against stockfish vs stockfish games to perform at 1200 elo level against stockfish.

I have been proved wrong I should have quit while I was ahead. /s

It's not been my personal experience on this website in the last 2-3 years atleast, pre-covid perhaps.

But despite that you aren't wrong and the only reason I even visit this website is because people sometimes did/do take time to reflect on things based on their experience and knowledge.

And in hindsight pointing out that hn has issues wasn't even the point but I feel frustrated when everyone is readily agreeing to things on here without reading. When that in this moment feels like the one thing that separates humans from machines that we get to think and learn.

I possibly should just drop reading this place until we have most noisy people go away. I have for one tried to always only comment on things where I could be a value add, this one does feel like I could I have done better.

In the moment I probably thought if they are GM level and I can beat them, is this some interesting find, my disappointment honestly led me to making a rather incorrect call on this one.

Either way I still do think HN as a whole has devolved into mindless herd follower mindset, I can point to more than a few posts that just say adopt the hacker mindset aka move fast don't care about the consequences.

And I for one find this laughable even though that's the reality of my job/work as well.

How many posts if I link that do the same thing will you agree this is the norm here.

Not everything I have the time and energy to reply to. This chess one is just ridiculous claims on top of ridiculous claims all the way and 0 push back in the comments except mine.

I don't even know if there is critical thought or we believe what we read/shared/etc

I can write you a benchmark to prove it even with a heavy handed system prompt Astra will make an illegal move during the course of the games first few moves are generally ok since it's just throwing out learned moves.

So AI is AGI in fields where code can't solve anything?

Is code omnipotent, I have been in software all my life and I would hard agree here.

Sure stuff LLMs can do with being good at parts of code reproduction is incredible. And honestly it's the new way to do a lot of things but I have not see an iota of proof that it can scale across the board.

For instance Maths is just code with different symbols and slightly less universally legible concepts.

AI is the best invention at figuring out or walking the search space and directionally doing logically computation over general software adjacent stuff.

But that's it, I am certain a bunch of companies will make a lot of money despite no AGI.

I think people either don't understand AGI or don't understand how real world works.

Until an LLM can bow it's head take responsibility for mistakes made and ensure they aren't repeated again with 100% confidence to the leadership it's inarguably a tool a rather questionable one at that.