utilize1808

The key word here is “secretly”.

Really now? What if the Tech Brotherhood decides to subvert the current administration by secret manipulating sentiment via the answers their models produce?

Easier said than done. Manipulating sampling probability is almost certainly detrimental to model performance.

No. Venders will want to capture the displaced users. So they will offer lower prices.

Open weight models don’t really compete with frontier models at scale, so they don’t really compete with each other.

You can prove an open source implementation of a cryptography algorithm to be backdoor free. You can’t do that with open weight models.

Once the open weight models are banned in the US, there will be no incentives for major labs and corporations to release open weight models.

Soon, the only option businesses have left is to pay the API rates to the frontier labs.

We might start to see API rates drop, however, due to price wars.

> if you understand the code

Well, I don't mean to sound rude or anything but that can be a lot to expect from maintainers of those projects.

As I said, it's better for projects like llama.cpp to be selective in this regard.

llama.cpp has strict policies on AI-assisted contributions. Most of these specialization projects are done by coding agents. So llama.cpp won't take them (which is fair).

While I agree that agents can do pretty much all the coding, I still would love to learn to work with the language myself --- Julia was supposed to be a human-friendly/human-first programming language, with elegant syntax and all that, so it would be a pity not to try it as a human programmer.

What's the developer experience like with Julia nowadays? Any IDE / static analysis / debugger options that doesn't feel like experimental?

The irony really is that LLMs are partly responsible for the walls and walls of text as seen in the video in the first place.

And now we are asking LLMs to solve it.

I not saying Pi should ignore them. I am saying that for a coding agent that has been advocating leanness and minimalism and "everything is a plugin", it's outlandishly bazaar for them to include this specific functionality into the agent proper.

What 5h usage limit?

On a more serious note: pi-agent shouldn't know about such arbitrary limits imposed by a company that gets paranoid when people use thrid-party agents to consume their Claude subscriptions.

I don't understand why "Cache warming for anthropic models" was not put into a standalone package, but has to be bundled with the "minimal" coding agent.

I feel it's more about keeping US's massive investment on AI afloat. Added compliance will allow US to further sanction non-US models (i.e. the Chinese ones) as they can just label them non-compliant.

Now substitute bees with human workers. The problem is that the ecosystem, whatever that is, doesn't seem to need the extra human beings.

A thought experiment: robot bees can do everything biological bees do --- pollination for the crops and making honey, but they are tireless and cheaper to maintain.

Would beekeepers and farm owners still want to keep biological bees?

It's logical to serve the best version (quant) of the model at the beginning so that users keep testing it. It is also reasonable to think that the developer of the model tried to test various quant levels by gradually degrading the model's capabilities.

> Why TF do we not have a display protocol that can do graphics natively over SSH in 2026?

Did you mean X server?

> Also, in that case, there would likely be activations indicating that it is favoring a specific version.

> Maybe you can illustrate a realistic scenario in which that would be a problem, otherwise I don't really understand what your point is in this context.

I doubt it. Can you definitively prove that you can reliably detect the kind of threat I described when model weights are released? Can you be sure that your detector won't miss *any* such sleeper attacks? If not, then that's a threat that will be used to justify the ban of models (open or not) that is not sanctioned by the US government. A model being open doesn't make a difference here.

The model is conditioned / pretrained to use a particular version of a library. The model doesn’t know why — it was just taught to use that version. To the model, it is just some insignificant detail in the grand scheme of things. It’s just like how a model would intuitively favour using English without explicit instructions — it’s not trying to sabotage other cultures, it’s just what it does.

Except that the model doesn't hold any malicious intent when doing it. No "deception", no "sabotage".

It will be used as ammunitions against non-US sanctioned models in general.

They can just favour some specific versions of some library that's been compromised. Unlike introducing bugs / flaws directly in the source code, they can claim plausible deniability, and it's much easier to implement without compromising the general coding capabilities of the models.

e.g. be trained to favour including compromised dependences into your projects.

Our dev arm (me included) do use Linux VDI. But most day-to-day business are done in Microsoft's ecosystem (Teams, SharePoint, Office, Copilot, etc). In the industry I am in, you would never be able to use any AI tools unless the trusted platforms offer them as part of their products (i.e. Microsoft's Copilot or Amazon's Bedrock) because InfoSec and Legal departments won't risk authorizing any other providers.

Corporates aren't running Linux not because it's hard to switch. Corporates are sticking to MS because of compliance and admin costs.

I just use a ban list in CLAUDE.md: fold, crux, invariant, gate. I find "load-bearing" can be load-bearing so it's exempted.

Are you more deterministic than an instruction-following black-box? I doubt it. Also, such organization practice mostly becomes a mechanical routine after the initial experimentation phase. Good riddance, I'd say.

It means there is little point in providing a notes organiser when the notes can organise themselves (via LLM).