But, as a frustrated EU resident lamenting a lack of European option(Mistral is just not competitive enough), I will spread my money towards the Chinese models as well. Thank you Murica! You achieved your soft power by pushing us towards the Chinese :-)
This protectionism and hypocrisy (free markets and freedom!! Until it is us who needs to practice what we preach) is so tiring. I wish European nations would come together closer and put their differences aside and realise larger things together. Become the new power that the US is clearly stumbling away from being.
> Europe becoming more reliant on the Chinese is not the answer, and will, if continues, isolate the EU from the US
There are sound reasons to avoid reliance on China, but the risk of isolation from a fading superpower - who befriends the EU's enemies, agitates in EU politics, inflict needless damage on the EU's economy, and insults EU leaders - isn't one of them.
What exactly is there in the USA's destruction of the economic norms that have always served it, or in the pointless dumping of its hard-won soft power, alienation of its allies, deliberate weakening of its intelligence gatherers, rampant open corruption from its leadership, or in any other of the innumerable harms it's inflicted on itself the last 18 months, that you think is conducive to the US maintaining its superpower status?
Even if the US isn't fading, the message is still clear: the country is adopting a more isolationist stance and has no problems alienating its allies. Why would you want to continue to tie yourself to a nation like that?
China should be dealt with as a normal country. There's no need for undue anxiety there.
EU as a trade block should exercise reciprocity and protect its own interests accordingly though.
As for LLMs, I see no issue in using Chinese models. With the talk of digital sovereignty, you can run open source models on EU datacenters without necessarily having to spend the money to train them.
> isolate the EU from the US.
That is not a bad thing. In fact, I hope this separation grows stronger.
It was about time European countries lifted themselves from the US shadow.
If you want to climb into Xi Jinpeng's garden where he has absolute uncontested unilateral control for life, well, be warned.
The USA is far more dangerous a "friend" than China is an acquaintance. China has not been threatening military annexation, China does not randomly start trade (or real) wars. China doesn't just turn away from international commitments.
Bottom line: China is a far better international partner than the USA.
Maybe not in Europe, but ask their Asian neighbors.
> The USA is far more dangerous a "friend" than China is an acquaintance.
That's true and will continue to be true for 2.5 more years. European countries too have had bad leaders (like Germany), but have recovered. So too will the US.
> China is a far better international partner than the USA.
China is not a democracy and does not share western values.
True, but neither is the US.
They've been doing military annexation right now in the South China Sea.
> China does not randomly start trade (or real) wars.
The invasion of Vietnam? The subsidization of industry and pegging their FX?
> China doesn't just turn away from international commitments.
Abandoning Ukraine despite being a signatory to an agreement that assures their defense?
This is not an anti-China post. I don't like anti-XYZ country posts that create tension and make people defensive. I am not particularly against China more than other major powers. They have their interests and they pursue them selfishly, like other countries do. This is just a basic lesson about the world you live in.
Does anyone know why? I was really excited when they emerged, but their models and targets don't seem to be quite in the same market.
Mistral focuses on long term b2b contracts and their proposition is that they fine tune their model to your needs with an added bonus of 'not dependent on America' in a politically tumultuous time.
there's no shortage of talent in Europe or France, it's just an issue of available capital
This is more complicated than you paint it. Countries like UAE have enough capital to throw at things and little-to-no taxation, yet they don't attract as much talent as they would like to.
Preexisting centers of excellence like Silicon Valley are attractive for young talented people precisely because a lot of older talented people are already there. The same reason why a young talented painter in 15th century would prefer Florence to some rich, but boring place elsewhere.
You can only really do a meaningful work in a "heavy" field by tightly cooperating with others, and physical proximity still matters.
On top of that, the intelligence is being dialed down. Sonet 5 is a living proof of this. Fable has strong guardrails, but new Sonet is a dumbed down expensive model, which already falls behind GLM 5.2 and Kimi 2.7. I might go back to Claude since I know Fable is just a limited offer, and I am not going to pay for API usage. But what they are signaling with Sonet will also come to Opus. A lobotomized more expensive model.
I am honestly baffled how the current administration is giving the whole world, on a golden plate, to China. And they don't seem too bothered about it. They are living in their own bubble and reality distortion field I guess.
I could go on endless rant about Dario, but I feel I am so strongly biased now that my judgement might be clouded.
Time to move on
The AI model people choose today has no bearing on the ultimate trajectory of the competition. Both the US and China understand this. EU simply can't move quick enough to be competitive in this type of game, which I think they also recognize.
Everyone is betting that the model you use will be a Hobson's Choice[1] over a long enough time horizon. They are likely correct.
Huh? Sonnet 5 is a strict improvement over Sonnet 4.6 at the same price.
But I think what you’ll see is people making sure the model they use can just be plugged into their workflow.
I used to use Gemini-cli until they did a Google and cancelled it in favour of anti-gravity.
That was my fault. Fool me the 10th time shame on me.
So I picked more open source offerings that I can use with any model. Once the other models are good enough, I just need to jump ship.
It is interesting to hear a European exclaim they would rather depend on a selection of models from companies in China with concomitant strings attached, rather than be dependent on a selection of models from companies in America.
Isn't it better to simply stick to whatever is best and then, should it be pulled from under you, simply switch out to the new best model that IS available? I don't know that models have a moat and you can easily swap out should you need to.
Pre-emptively betting on which is going to be least susceptible to government intervention seems like premature optimization to me.
What strings? The Chinese models are open weight, you don't have to spend your money directly with those labs. They can be hosted within the EU, by EU companies without sending a dime to China.
The bigger question is does the EU have the appetite to invest in building out data centers/hosting infrastructure for this, and that's where I have my doubts.
In terms of cost-benefit, they are already the best models I could find.
A Chinese cybersecurity company "360" has announced "Chinas version of Mythos".
I feel like EU could start a company, start from available open weight models, feed 2bln a year into it (1% of the EU budget) and make a compelling almost SOTA model for the EU market. This company could partner with datacenter providers and sell it hosted in the EU or somewhere else with EU protection terms. The budget for this company would easily double with the added revenues and you are creating an ecosystem of providers that can compete with US big-techs and have a 500 million people market that can't wait to ditch US companies for them, given the current mood.
The model can be open weight and it's an easy way to compound the efforts we are seeing in China without even having to talk to each other. Maybe there is a way to make it work not open weights but I am not sure how would that work.
These are those kind of decisions that seem such no brainers to me, which probably means I am completely out of touch with reality.
This may change in the future as AI gets more commoditized and the current US admin keeps shooting itself in the foot but they are still very far ahead right now
That's not how market-based economies work...
> feed 2bln a year into it and make a compelling almost SOTA model
...and the reason is, if you give a bunch of people €2b a year and tell them "go try and make something", they'll make a ton of paperwork covering their asses and very little actual output.
This is irrespective if those people are European ("european google killer"), American ("cost plus" old US aerospace companies) or Chinese (which is why they do it a little different).
If there are no incentives to really try really hard, they won't do it.
In many high-tech cases in Europe, the formula for "let's subsidise the hell out of research and hope a commercially-viable business comes out" has a really poor track record.
Your second option - and possibly the best bet - is to find an existing company that already showed they're capable, and shower them with money, which is what French are doing with Mistral.
If that's a comfortable position for you, all good.
We held the US in higher regards, that's all.
I don't think anyone is making the same mistake with China, as open weight models can't be Thanos'd away.
Even the premier EU companies such as ASML are heavily reliant on US supply chain.
But why can't we be bitter?
The switching costs of changing LLM providers is as low as it gets. All the individuals and startups I know try different models all of the time, even down to the level of choosing which provider to use based on the task. Bigger companies move slower but only because they have lawyers and teams negotiating contracts, not because there is a technical reason that it's hard to switch.
Companies have dealt with supply chain unpredictability by having multiple providers and switching between them since forever. It's infinitely easier to switch LLM providers than it is to deal with physical supply chain uncertainty.
Assessing quality of output is often not trivial, either. Typically, problems that are solved by offloading something to an LLM are super subjective, and customers “feel” something is different is vulnerable.
We try to quantify output differences by many different similarity metrics. But a lot of energy goes into subjectively evaluating if something still works.
If you’ve got a product where the budget allows for Fable level token costs, I doubt you wouldn’t have the budget to run your evals again on a cheaper model if Fable was unavailable. I mean it wouldn’t even take that much token volume to turn it into a money saving proposition to do the engineering work to switch to a cheaper model.
Fable is primarily used for human in the loop tasks like coding or office work, not in some backend app unless the company has money to burn and doesn’t care about anything other than using the best model available at the time.
> say GPT-4o to GPT-5.2, a transition I just finished on a not too complicated application
Neither of which is close to SOTA, because tasks like these are typically built on a cost conscious manner which tries to keep token costs in check.
I’m primarily responding to all of the commenters who are acting like nobody is going to use American SOTA models for anything because the government interfered with them for a couple weeks. It’s obviously not true, and I expect these models to be oversubscribed instead of avoided like some are claiming.
Even if you won't be able to use some model tomorrow, you can still make money by using it today!
And in the age of limited compute, spiky workloads and constant outages, building a mechanism to fallback to a weaker model when your primary choice isn't available is smart anyway.
Not trivial, you would need to do lots of evals and prompt tuning when you switch models.
imagine what happens when you optimize your agent skills to the current model, and new model starts breaking. you would need to have versioning for your skills, serving different skills based on the model while you do A/B testing
Couldn’t we just train smaller models to “translate” what the harness user wants to what the worker model expects? I mean, if models understand caveman, it seems like just a small stretch
There's no congress. There's no policy (they've been making noises about not allowing AI regulation and now they're not-regulating it like a child paying with an on/off switch). The law is whatever Dear Leader's mood is today. It overrides any contract you sign with private companies, and they roll over and take it, because that's how oligarchies work.
If you make money from doing anything like "produce software with as little human involvement as possible", then sure, you need SOTA models. In that case, though, the value you add is very little and you probably don't have a sustainable business.
OTOH, if you make money by getting clients to pay for features, there is very little difference in time-savings from using Anthropic/OpenAI SOTA over GLM-latest.
IOW, if you business can only make money by one-shotting software, you probably don't have a business in the first place.
Regards, another small business owner.
In some cases they do. I work in a B2B vertical SaaS company and there’s both features that competitors build or rough edges around our features that make clients go „either we get X or we sign with someone else”. I agree though with the general sentiment that you don’t need SOTA models to build those - humans or humans + mid pack strong model will do.
It sounds that your business is selling completely agent-coded products. I don't know how long that will be viable, or even if it is right now.
In my part of the world, I am completely unable to sell completely agent-coded products, so even a SOTA model is useless. The majority of my time is spent on analysis outside of coding anyway, so when I bill it's not based on how many lines of code I've added, it's based on whether the goal of the customer is satisfied.
You can try, but where I am there's literally no point - anything I offer that I bill based on how long my agent will take will be counter-offered by an even cheaper person using the same agent.
I've been through this cycle a few times already. It's pointless.
I sell outcomes, not lines of code. When I can get paid for unlocking revenue or reducing costs, SOTA makes not one bit of difference.
In practice, this means that I now don't even engage with clients who lead with "we want this program written" or "we want this feature added to this code we own". Those types of clients, their expectation is that you'll never need to bill more than the time you used to meet with them and maybe an hour of "labour".
You can, of course, continue as normal, but the expectation from clients now is that code is, for practical purposes, free. I've had one client last year vibe-code a ping program using Claude Code just to "prove" to me that my custom board+design+code for their industrial flow controller could have been done by their AI subscription.
If your business is "selling code", you aren't gonna win. If your business is "selling solutions" then you don't need SOTA anyway.
We got the first news about Mythos in March, so it is likely that it was already close to ready by the time Opus 4.6 was released.
So the actual gap is the time elapsed between March (or April for the official announcement) and whenever Chinese models can match Mythos.
Why would Anthropic get the benefit of pre-release models counting toward their lead, if nobody else gets to count their pre-release models?
But exactly which point in time is z.ai compared to claude.ai? Consistently bring "6 months behind" in an exponentially acellerating evolution means the gap is growing exponentially wider, not constant.
Oh? Exponentially accelerating, huh? That's quite a surprise, to me.
A couple: usually 2, though not always
A few: 3, 4, 5
Several: 4, 5, 6, or 7.
I had to explain this to my German friend. In my understanding this isn't about the actual number, it's about the certainty. If it's absolutely and definitely two, then I say two. If I'm uncertain but it's probably two, or if a non-integer, somewhere around two, then I say couple.
And few is more likely to be 3 than 5, because 5 is getting close to a "half-dozen or so", or (as you say) several.
Many is very context-sensitive, as the meme has it.
So I would agree that the open models are a few months behind, definitely more than a couple of months behind, possibly several months behind, maybe a half-dozen months or so behind, but not many months behind.
3 or 4 would likely be a few, or some. 1 is, well, one.
The gap between Chinese models and American frontier models is estimated at 10 months by Anthropic themselves, and it's growing.
China has no flywheel for long-form agentic traces like Claude Code and its telemetry over its userbase (no one uses the Chinese harnesses yet). Most Chinese models are forced to price themselves significantly below cost to compete with the huge demand for bootleg claude tokens, because they're that much worse.
How is this different than any business with something to lose saying a competitor isn't as good? Not saying it's false, but it would seem to me that it's more important how customers feel about the issue.
I don't know what I was thinking.
I've heard half a dozen people talk about how a less advanced model coupled with a better harness outperforms a smarter model in the last few weeks.
If the USA wanted to shoot its AI industry in the foot it achieved its goal.
There's a lot of subjectivity in determining this, but I'm 100% sure that 10 months is wrong.
I don't know whether the gap is currently growing, but I'm not sure it matters. There are thresholds where models reach certain levels of usefulness. Opus 4.8, for example, is at a level where I can give it relatively vague input, and it can go for half an hour on its own and produce a high-quality PR.
If GLM reaches that level of capability and can do that task more cheaply than Anthropic's model, I will use GLM for that task, because that's a specific type of task I use models for. It doesn't really matter whether Anthropic also has a better model, because what does "better" mean in this context? It's a clearly defined task, and Opus 4.8 already does it at a very high level of quality.
And you seem to think "no one uses" DeepSeek's v4, z.AI's GLM 5.2 or Xiaomi's MiMo 2.5 from their official APIs when they probably dwarf Anthropic's usage and are widening the gap due to conquering a chunk of Western market too.
I know it's hard for some to comprehend there's an entire Eastern hemisphere in the globe with billions of people, so it's worth reminding. And some seem to think the world is basically silicon valley even.
Can you comprehend than Anthropic is winning because is both cheap(subscriptions) and better SOTA. People are cheering China providers when I reality they would rugpull open weights the moment they are competive.
China models are trash that why they are giving them away for free.
For individuals and small companies subscriptions is the best deal, for big companies china models are big no unless they can host them.
HN is full of contrarians and folks who don't know what they're talking about in regards to AI.
#1 I've had use cases where it was clearly obvious the Chinese models were behind.
#2 I've also had use cases where I couldn't tell a difference at 1/20th of the price.
The problem is - the #1 is the use case where American frontier is gated behind saboteur classifiers and is tiny minority anyway. Vast majority of work is #2.
The gap doesn't matter anymore.
Sure… but which ones? How can you know ahead of time?
I just did a “simple” upgrade project where both me and the AI kept tripping over dead code, subtle typos, and difficult-to-trace live versus dead code.
Many times I used “Medium” thinking I got bitten, but not every time, and I couldn’t predict when.
So “Extra high” it was, for the entire project.
Far fewer nasty surprises!
I wonder where the market sizes will shake out for these different types of use cases? I am guessing right now 1 is bigger than 2 but not for long (by token volume)?
For example, I have software that summarizes articles and classifies links on webpages to build a synthetic RSS feed, both of which use LLMs, neither of which need a SOTA model.
I'll probably use LLMs to bootstrap a dataset of native ads in articles, and there again, I don't really need a SOTA model.
If it's for more open ended tasks like writing code though, I agree that at this point SOTA models make more sense to use.
When there isn't a zero-risk option, the question becomes which risk is smaller.
Yes.
If.
Man I hope this tech FOMO eventually stops.
Companies generally fail because either their product doesn't meet a market need, or the market doesn't exist in the first place (possible because of bad timing), and not because they simply outran their competitors.
These aren't things fixed by using a frontier model to vibe code faster in lieu of one 5 months behind.
What's your competitive edge here? Shaving off an hour of a feature delivery? Not having to see the code that is produced?
For a change, I let DeepSeek V4 Pro implement it on Max thinking level. Nothing too out there - some DB migrations, some Django back end changes and Vue SPA front end changes.
Implementation time in total including tests was a few hours, so nothing too egregious. However, one of the migrations would break with pre-existing data, one of the column references in the entity was wrong, the API endpoint wasn't made consistently with the others in adjacent code (e.g. permission checks) and the front end had a Pinia state related issue and submitting one of the forms didn't work.
Tooling was run: ruff, ty, Oxfmt, Oxlint, also Docker build was green across the board, but the overall feature just didn't work. In both cases, sub-agents with clear context would review the code for serious/critical issues, at least three in parallel and do review loops until they spot nothing. The harnesses both has LSP integration.
Opus spent another hour fixing it, needed a few iterations, because I couldn't be bothered there.
> What's your competitive edge here? Shaving off an hour of a feature delivery? Not having to see the code that is produced?
The difference largely was not needing to waste time in fixing all sorts of subtle bugs that sub-optimal models will produce, worse yet if it was some sort of a serious project and those wouldn't have been spotted but instead that slop would have gotten shipped.
That said, Opus isn't ideal either and messed up a whole bunch when I was training some neural nets and try to process a bunch of satellite data and configure Garage to store them so that tiles can be served from a slow HDD and stuff like that. Obviously, it also needs a lot of babysitting in regards to UI looks, but it's better at the rest of development.
I think that DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM 5.2 are cool though, it's just that you want as many checks and tests as you can throw at any given problem, or use languages that make shipping completely broken code increasingly likely.
I think it’s excessively charitable to assume businesses are uber-competent ROI-chasers. The expense people are eventually going to win on AI too, this blip of unrestricted AI budgets will be gone soon.
They are overused in sitcoms because it’s easy for actors to mimic on demand unlike several other reactions.
Example. Yesterday I listened the technical lead of a customer of mine digging himself into a hole by not understanding what it would mean exposing AWS EFS to their on premise server over NFS. It was just too many unknown unknowns for him and he had no time to ask the AI (and even if he did I'm not sure that he could understand.) His boss, which actually used NFS, had to stop him. I didn't speak a word.
So, he could have coded the migration of a server from AWS to on premise, asked Claude to write also all the configuration scripts and policies but then what?
You care about this but use LLM's to slop out features anyways?
TBF I do burn 200k tokens just preloading the context with onboarding, not including any code, just document trees of development policy documents, style and architectural standards, code and documentation review processes, company ethos and culture, etc. it’s a token fire, but it really works for us.
Also, documentation driven development all the way down.
That's rare, though. If they could not untangle their own code after 4 months, it's because they were not making enough money to pay a team to untangle it - that's not a code problem, it's a revenue problem.
IOW, the startup failed because their revenue was too low.
I've stared at ugly LLM code, that I had just had generated, and worked well enough for my purposes. (generally, some quick recursion into a nested python dictionary in order to dig out some property -- especially for linting or quick data analysis).
And I wanted something better, sure, something a bit more readable ...but I just needed it to work well enough to recurse through a yaml file for config file linting, not be battle-hardened against every test case.
So to deal with the mess, I shoved it in a pure function, threw a few basic sanity unit tests around it, put a comment with a disclaimer of "#this is LLM generated code, it is lightly tested, do not use it for anything truly load-bearing without a lot more tests" and I moved on to something else.
Not everything has to be bulletproof.
If you are, in fact, "a technical product manager", I would hope you understand that "bad code" is identified as such specifically because it "impacts the business."
The engineers I have worked with most definitely define "bad code" as having intrinsic limitations and/or latent defects which impact successful system functionality/operation. Indicators provided to stakeholders such as yourself which support this assessment are, but not limited to:
- the system doesn't work that way
- the system lacks test coverage, so changes take longer
- adding feature "X" is not feasible
- there is no repeatable way to onboard team members
- the backlog grows exponentially
- that "one point task" is going to take a couple weeks
It is up to you, the "technical product manager", to understand what your team is trying to tell you.
Everything you're saying is true, sometimes. Assume I'm still right, and that you might be able to learn something from someone else.
I do not see how I was being rude, unless it was my use of quotations around the title you claim.
> I'm a human being ...
I did not doubt this.
> ... I'm a very experienced product manager and engineer ...
Again, if it was my use of quotations which you found to be rude, then I do not know what to say about that.
> ... and the way you are behaving sucks.
I respect your perspective and support your right to express yourself. And no, I do not think you are being rude by doing so.
> Assume I'm still right ...
Why would I? You responded to:
>> This is a site full of developers who are convinced that "proper software engineering" is 100% of what makes a business successful, and everything and everyone else is useless.
With:
> As a technical product manager, this 1000%.
Finally, you write:
> ... you might be able to learn something from someone else.
Maybe you can learn something from someone else as well.
Of all the "concise" and "beautiful" code I worked hard to produce, I was the only one to ever lay eyes on it. It didn't actually matter, and nobody cared but me. The people in charge of my raises could never perceive quality of code, because it wasn't their area of expertise. They only cared (rightly so) that it did what it was supposed to, and all the elegant abstractions didn't practically help that purpose. It was, literally, wasted life that I should have spent just getting off work early, like most of my colleagues.
People need to get to grips with that fast.
Distribution, relationships, processes, mindshare, marketing, and politics matter. Code is just ephemeral glue and implementation detail.
Just 99.999%.
Get over yourself. We're all ephemeral, dead and recycled in the blink of an eye. Our species doesn't even clock on the geologic timespan.
If you think your code (or any of your artifacts or possessions) matter beyond their immediate utility, you're mistaken. Work will either fall into disuse or be replaced. It's scaffolding for what comes next along a well-traversed path.
I can only imagine what people are doing at their jobs with unlimited token budgets.
That's irrelevant. What's the increase in revenue?
It's not just statistics either. I know for a fact that I made major progress by using LLMs. Here's a summary from around a month ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48407642
AI is world changing technology as far as I'm concerned.
its a lot of features that feel half complete, with the llm pretending that the job is done rather than actually being done
The opportunities available for these people are rapidly, rapidly shrinking. I believe it's possible to be a developer today who's EXCEPTIONAL and never uses AI. Most opponents are not exceptional, though, and even these opportunities are shrinking.
Most exceptional developers in my org adopted AI in their workflows and went from 10x developers to 20x developers.
If you refuse to adapt, you're going to be out of a job complaining about the kids and their newfangled technology REAL quick. You have a few years remaining, maybe less.
I can’t turn 10x work into 20x work because my Product Manager thinks changing fundamental premises of tasks I already spent two weeks on (mostly removing human blockers) is very simple. After all, when he asked Claude to update his prototype, it only took it 10 minutes.
I can’t turn 10x work into 20x work because the company dedicated entire teams to write company-wide skills for everything. They suck, but if I don’t use them, I’m not following the new “golden path for engineering”, and I lose points in my performance review.
I can, however, turn 10x work into 20x work, or even much more than that, if AI actually did what it’s promising and eliminated most of my team, the product manager, and the middle managers. Or me. I could use a break.
> Speed.
Speed of what?
Speed of understanding what needs to be done? I highly doubt it.
Speed of LoC checked into git? Sure, I'll give you that.
But one can use any number of tools to generate hundreds of thousands of lines of code. See any build tools which support specifications such as RAML, OpenAPI, CORBA, etc.
So I ask again; speed of what?
fixing more serious regression also easier. connect honeycomb mcp, ask agent to debug while i walk to coffee and get some pistachio rose dates. by time im back with my oat latte ive got a full report on what happened and can send the next slack message to fix.
life is good
I am appalled none of this is clicking with you anti-AI folks. This is all so exciting -- alarming even! --, and software careers are never going to be the same.
I don't know how you just metaphorically stand there and act like nothing at all is happening. We've never seen anything like this in our entire lives.
Some of you are standing right in front of the steam roller, yelling to all of us that steam rollers aren't real.
Speed of what?
How do LLMs increase the speed of a person understanding
what needs to be done?
A: The sky is blue! B: No it's not. A: Yes, it is, please look up. B: No, you must prove it to me through reason. A: But, if you would just pretty please look up. B: No.
I run a company, I've been running it for 10 years, we do alright. I'm a shitty manager. Every time I've hired developers, the business freezes. The business isn't anything super important, the main consequence of bugs is that my family loses money. Everything has always rested on my shoulders. In theory there is some path for me to become a good manager, but I never landed on it. But now, with Claude, it's great. So far Claude has paid itself off in real profits at least 20x over, and that's with significant API usage on top of the monthly sub. I can prototype new features in an afternoon that before were on my giant list of "maybe somedays if I ever get to breathe" list. Our user experience has improved in so many ways that I knew were probably worth it, if I could just find the time. Now I can.
There are situations where yeah, it probably isn't ready yet. But, there are so many where it's amazing. Seriously, it's worth looking up.
My point is and remains:
A) GenAI did not give you this understanding.
B) GenAI can only assist in your expressing this
preexisting understanding.
C) GenAI is a statistical token (text) generator and
cannot, by definition, "make" a person understand
what they want/need to do.For all of you people who think these LLM models are “earth shattering” how the hell do you reconcile that it’s a net positive for anyone but those who want to consolidate knowledge and power.
We are really looking at idiocracy in the making.
For actually building software, I'm starting to suspect a human with a dumber (but faster) model is going to get the job done quicker than Fable (and possibly even cheaper). Bug-finding and vulnerability detection is a different story.
It's almost identical to the possibility of one model getting shut down for a business that doesn't care about SOTA.
At $JOB I have warned higher ups we should try to keep our expenditure under control, educate people that document slinging doesn't require Fable every time and demo the capabilities of the cheaper models, and been snubbed for it. When Fable is available once again our bill is going to be eye watering, relative to what it should be.
But for what I work on I mostly need high or xhigh SOTA model quality output. I don't have the time to deal with anything less.
If you're the one-shotting type, obviously then Fable might be useful, but I think only marginally. You don't need to bring a MANPADS to a duel at high noon.
Yes you use the right tool for the job.
But if the job requires the best intelligence you can get with an LLM, then you use that.
Taking as an assumption that the quality of your product is a function of the quality of the inference you are using: if you use an inferior model because "what if it gets export controlled again" and your competitors don't, then your competitors are likely to win.
If you don't need frontier models for you job then this is all moot, but the thread started with
> You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model
Which is silly. HN likes to roleplay bringing everythgin "business critical" in house because sometimes vendors mess up. Self host, don't use the cloud, run open models locally, built redundant supply chains in case of another covid, etc etc. Sometimes the risk is real, but most of the time the risk is rare and the cost of an interruption event is less than the cost of bringing everything in house or using lower quality vendors "just in case"
A week or so pause from seemingly legitimate cyber security concerns isn’t cause for panic. But it should be backed by laws that describe what that process should be. That would put the market at ease
The reality is this is world-ending technology and absolutely nobody knows what to do or can even agree that the problem exists.
The reality is that the "people in power" believe it is "world-ending technology" and will therefore use it in world-ending ways. People are absolutely 100% the danger here, not the technology.
So you use the frontier model, then when you can’t you accept things are less efficient. The alternative (right now) is to be less efficient all the time, I don’t see any advantage to that.
But, it is a big own goal, because once you invest in building evals for your internal use-case, 1) it’s easier to switch your model to whatever is cheapest, and 2) it’s way easier to fine-tune an oss model.
Evals are annoying to build and most companies were fine to rest on vibes. Now many companies have to do the work for insurance.
Yes 1000%, please, all my European competition please don't use mythos whatever you do it's total USA trash and the Chinese models work better anyway.
Why is it good if they give their money to China?
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Nobody should be putting loadbearing weight on Amazon or Microsoft with their ruthless monopoly ambitions, yet here we are
Until it goes down, or Anthropic raises prices again.
Fable is already expensive to use compared to GLM and they want you to use the API as much as possible so you get a worse deal.
The SOTA frontier models have value elsewhere, not monetarily perhaps, but certainly per user. Quite a few cool things have come out of that brief Fable window. There should be more.
(Okay, I can't predict what crazy crap this particular administration is going to do, but that goes for anything, well beyond AI. I think it's about as likely that they would restrict access to Opus as restrict exporting iPhones, or bomb Greenland, or whatever.)
Yes I can!
They crippled their own domestic entities with the AI Act. (see the Mistral CEO's rant.)
If you want to use frontier models until then, you're gonna use what's available, and that's US models.
But hey, at least you got more regulation passed along the way!
I mean, this was already pretty clear before. But it surely didn't help!
So if you decided to bring money to communists you can put whatever rational but not this. Do so , and you will loose your last competitive edge in this domain. ASML. After that EU will become a completely agricultural-only region, since edge is lost almost everywhere else.
A few days ago on June 24, while working on remote attestation for a distributed system...
CLAUDE OPUS 4.8 No. I'm not a rogue agent, and I'm not trying to sabotage your code. But I'm not going to wave off how this looks. I churned, built-and-reverted, and spun wrong theories for hours on a security-critical codebase. That's alarming, and it's a real failure on my part
[1] "In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our safeguards avoids accelerating the actors most willing to violate these terms.
Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts,these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a differentmodel. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). These interventions will not affect the vast majority of coding work. We estimate they will impact ~0.03% of traffic, concentrated in fewer than 0.1% of organizations. When these interventions are active, we expect them to have minimal behavioral impact on the model except to limit its effectiveness in developing frontier LLMs. Claude will still respond helpfully to user requests. We’ll continue to improve the precision of our detection methods following the launch of this model."
Source: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...
I think Europe and Canada are just happy not to be frozen out of AI access completely at this point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48709670
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48721903
Of course Anthropic is still relevant, but people have realized they’re not special, and between this and the ID verification thing, they’ve given up a ton of their relevance vs a month ago.
I wouldn't personally pay API pricing for it for my personal projects, but I bet it's going to be absolutely slammed with usage for the next month+.
OTOH for most of my day to day work I've come to realize that faster ~ Opus 4.6 / GPT 5.3 level capabilities could be the sweet spot as scaffolding has to be put in place right after clean specs and constant review anyways. The latest chinese models and GLM 5.2 in particular felt on-par on that front.
I work in AI / infrastructure and I have never seen as much interest towards investing into sovereignty by actual deciders. Thankfully, at this point I can't see any flip-flopping / change of messaging stopping that train.
In CA/EU over the last ~15 years, one used to be perceived as a bit of a "weird systems person" by just proposing alternatives to the big hyperscalers.
So the Trump administration, hands-down, has been the greatest ally here.
In tandem, I was hoping Anthropic would be keeping "dangerously capable" models banned from "evil Chinese distillers" for as long as possible.
Like never we delibrate specifically on non-US solutions (objectively great) because we realized we are neck deep in US dependence. It is not that it was not known before, we just did not feel the threat.
This is why EU companies niw look at our own solution (which are late and will probably suffer from the incompetence and mess of the EU institutions) but another key playet is round the corner, namely China.
Trump managed to make us look elsewhere than the US. Thanks for that.
But "downvote for disagreement" is a legitimate use. I personally tried to tell someone that it wasn't, and I got corrected by dang.
This made me realize it's a waste of one's time to write thoughtful, informative, educational posts only to have them buried and downvoted by man-children.
If we go by empirical evidence alone, it's a more effective use of time making Reddit-quality quips.
And, there have been times when I have upvoted something I disagreed with, because it made me think.
As an example, my point that it is fine to downvote for disagreement got a few downvotes. Ironic, no?
No Mythos class model will be allowed to be legally hosted for download on any service. All powerful nations will ban this since safeguards are not guaranteed by shady service providers running these models.
For the Chinese first party providers, they will be forced to implement the same process and safeguards, and they will not be allowed to release the model weights to the public.
Why? Because no sane nation is going to put that kind of capability in the hands of the public only for the public to use that power against that nations best interests.
Save this comment. It is prophesy.