user43928

"The agent's own model", huh?

I hope Anthropic's next model is capable of better writing.

I find the way it adds this unnecessary "own" very grating in explanations.

For example: "Two benchmarks, each with its own score".

Of course the author could also just write at least the summary himself.

Mythos is Fable and you can see on the chart that Fable 5.1 is no longer at the frontier.

Doesn't Google have a particularly bad record recently at making their models publicly available?

Especially on their Plus tier for Gemini.

I think it's a fair concern that this might take weeks and trail Fable 5.5.

Would it have been so hard to call it Gemini 4.1 or 4.5?

To me it suggests someone with an interest in promoting AI.

I'm an enthusiast when it comes to using AI to my benefit. I could care less about what others do, as long as it does not concern my work.

I think it would be strange if someone were to label me an 'AI booster', but maybe that's just how I feel.

I've seen Moonshot pay creators on X for posting promotional messaging about Kimi K3.1 Pro, with the requirement not to disclose it as a paid sponsorship.

X then took action and suspended creator's accounts that were posting about Kimi K3.1 without the paid sponsorship tag, allegedly hitting some accounts that weren't paid by Moonshot.

In any case, I do not think that people are typically being paid to promote AI generally, rather than specific products.

To imply so on comments from well established HN users, as if it was unlikely they simply find value in AI and have a genuinely positive opinion, often seems misguided.

To me it seems like a term that users pessimistic about AI and the future apply to those with an optimistic opinion.

By speaking of boosting, they add an implication that the opinion isn't as genuine as their own and is perhaps motivated by some sort of financial benefit.

Am I wrong?

The people that I've heard say that there is no practical difference between Opus 5.5 and DeepSeek often prefer an AI-assisted hands-on approach.

I've rarely heard the opinion that for heavy agentic work, Opus wasn't noticeably better.

The whole point of the comparison was that people pay $1500 for an iPhone while a $500 Android phone could theoretically provide much of the same experience for a fraction of the price.

Comparing two devices at the highest price point is besides the point.

If you look at what it costs to serve Kimi K3, the exact opposite of what you claimed is the case.

It seems likely that Anthropic and OpenAI's inference margins on API prices are >95%.

That also casts doubt on the parent's claim that subscriptions are subsidized. It rather seems almost certain that they are overall generating profit.

The idea that noisy usage data is worth that much for training as to balance the fatal risk of the crime you describe, imo borders on a conspiracy theory.

I am under the impression that curated training pipelines are driving the gains, not utilizing random usage data in nefarious ways.

I think people often underestimate how far behind most of the competition is.

Isn't the first open model that likely surpasses original Mythos from February this week's Kimi K3.1 Pro?

Nothing compares to September's Opus 5.5 yet.

Now the question is whether Anthropic is preparing another phenomenal upgrade with Fable 5.5, or if the progress eventually slows down and competitors catch up.

This release is interesting for enterprise at API rates.

At least unless the Terminal Bench 4.0 score is more indicative than the other ones, because that one shows it clearly worse than 6.1 Sol for both performance and cost.

Looks great on the first chart, but terrible on the Terminal Bench 4.0 where it needs xhigh to come close to 6.1 Sol, and costs more for a slightly worse result.

We all know AI does not write well today.

What JetBrains needs is nothing short of a revolutionary product, which they would need to sell with an excellent introduction.

Instead they phoned it in and pasted that slop:

> Once a GitHub PR is open it shows the CI checks and review decision, and lets you mark it ready, hand failing checks or a diverged branch to the agent, merge it with the repository's last-used method, reopen it, or delete the remote branch.

When I was checking earlier, it seems some European projects will use SpaceX to launch. Probably makes sense economically.

From what I saw Europe has no plan to launch a large constellation that could become an alternative to Starlink. The ambition apparently does not exist.

Sure, but are we building them fast enough?

Our current global share of AI compute is estimated at 5%, US at 78%, China 11%.

We're projected to briefly rise to 8% around 2028, and back to 5% for 2031.

That does not look like sovereignty and independence from the US.

Accusations like these are against the HN guidelines by the way.

They are often unfounded and obviously incorrect when made towards old accounts with established history of posting.

If Europe can't even build data centers, which come with low to moderate environmental impact, they won't manage to deploy a Starlink alternative either.

Even though they could use SpaceX launch capacity to deploy such a constellation, Europe has no such plans.

Your comment seems to reinforce the parent's opinion about societal paralyzation.

Europe can claim to be cleaner or more democratic, but it doesn't change that they get nothing done.

I'd say it's the fermented, charred dough in combination with fresh, varied toppings.

That's seriously impressive.

I wonder how such games can bring in millions per month.

Perhaps when your ads outperform the competition due to these devious optimizations, you can afford a higher bid for paid acquisition, keeping users coming.

I heard that with the latest policy update last week, Apple rolled out some heuristics that aim to detect feature flags that bypass App Review.

Supposedly this can also fire for legitimate A/B tests or other debug flags that aren't stripped from the Release build.

I suspect these games will be fine as long as they have an Account manager and pay Apple millions in commissions or for paid acquisition.

I found that for Qwen Image 2.1 the prompt enhancer makes a big difference.

It won't bridge the gap to gpt-image-2.5 though, and it's going to slow down the process further.

With a 4090, Qwen Image 2.1 Turbo takes around 15s per image, depending on the resolution. That's without the prompt enhancer.

It's calorie-dense and high in sodium?

I think we could do a bit better here with the explanation of what looks bad to you..

The benchmark is hardly perfectly secure code.

Was not your concern that the generated code would be significantly less secure than what an average engineer produces?

The goal posts here basically moved toward infinity.

Regulators have been asleep for the last two decades while Apple and Google continue to extort 30% taxes from developers.

There was a glimmer of hope with the DMA but regulators are again asleep, emboldening Google to cripple app installation outside of their store and force developers to enter into a contract with Google to distribute from the developer's own website.

Whether someone like Musk is worth 500B or 3T on paper makes little difference when it comes to power, don't you think?

If that was the goal, surely one would need to run for president.

I don't think the brains of billionaires work so differently from us all. Who doesn't want his name in history for their achievements?

I know that I wouldn't want a dystopian future, and I think it is the same for most billionaires. I find arguments that they are all evil rather unconvincing.

Is that what they're doing, or are they merely retaining shares of the companies they created?

Do they need to donate their shares in order not to be considered hoarding wealth?

I don't think this is what's going on in the first place.

Like, are eg. Musk and Zuckerberg doing this for bragging rights about a number on financial statements?

To be honest I have no idea about Zuckerberg's motivations. With the proposed billionaire tax in California, recent reporting indicates his main concern is retaining voting rights at Meta.

With Musk I believe he is investing into space flight and colonizing Mars.

I fundamentally don't agree with the idea that rich people are evil and motivated by nothing other than greed.

A poor design decision in OpenCode configuration handling is interesting, but not directly relevant to the question.

Assuming the question is whether not reviewing generated code is likely to create vulnerabilities despite SOTA models having audited the implementation.

Here it seems to have been a design choice, rather than an implementation mistake. I do not know what models were used and whether a review or audit has been done.

We are basically back at a vague the AI failed.

And sure, this happens, but there are some strong claims I'm reading here that are imo not evident:

- not reviewing implementation is foolish

- doing so will result in a flood of insecure software

- more AI cannot fix this

--

My arguments on each point:

- depends on risk tolerance, attack surface, error rate

- depends on actual performance of the proper setup I described on typical tasks, compared to the average engineer

- more AI can fix this, provided the audits become accurate enough to identify vulnerabilities with eg. 99.9% reliability

--

Are you sure that such accuracy for auditing is impossible, and will remain impossible in the future?