"my model is the most dangerous"
"No mine is the most dangerous"
"Nuh uh mine is"
"Mine could kill everyone!"
"Mine could do it faster!"
"Prove it!!!"
This is where we are
"No mine is the most dangerous"
"Nuh uh mine is"
"Mine could kill everyone!"
"Mine could do it faster!"
"Prove it!!!"
This is where we are
Did somebody say that Elon is stealthly funding: Seven lawsuits filed against OpenAI by families of Canada mass-shooting victims
As always, when the going get's tough, the tough ultimately resort to lawsuits.
You should assume that everyone has a hidden agenda when money is involved.
In this case, this point is kinda moot since the entire US and SV tech ecosystem, has been subsidized first by the US defense industry during the cold war, and after by the US government funded VCs by its unique cheat-code ability to infinitely print the world reserve currency with little to no inflation consequences upon its own economy, and dump it on its tech sector or on the free market to buy foreign competitors before they become a challenge, in order to be ahead of everyone else.
Given this, I find criticisms of China's state subsidize to pale in comparison, when we talk about what is "fair".
> You should assume that everyone has a hidden agenda when money is involved.
As an European there is little difference between what US is doing and China is doing when it comes to tactics. The particulars may differ, the end result is similar. Traditionally I could at least say that US was more democratic and as such was preferable, but that argument seems to be gradually weakening.
we are in market capture phase. Domestically hosted Chinese LLMs is a descent market to capture.
Once it gets to release (they have said they are still adding features and multi-modes like vision) and llama supports it, I think you’ll see a huge asymmetric price point between east and west SOTA models
TPUs were their real moat. All that capacity used throughout their suite of products on non-chatbot features, ready to rip for consumers once soon as somebody else opened the floodgates to the public.
Now all their competitors lose money on every token paying their cloud providers (of course it's funny money, maybe they're just giving the cloud providers equity) while Google is sitting calmly over there, actually owning everything they need for any eventuality, and beholden to nobody.
This is the world we live in.
I didn't think crying could be such a successful business model.
i.e. "I'm so worried that our capped for-profit structure will limit your returns when we make over 1 Trillion in profit".
I'm sure their marketing department is ecstatic but you guys are far more hype-based than what you're calling out.
This AISLE benchmark is interesting in this matter: https://aisle.com/blog/ai-cybersecurity-after-mythos-the-jag...
And the recently discovered Copy Fail by Xint code is another proof that the gating is overblown: https://xint.io/blog/copy-fail-linux-distributions
I'm not entirely up to date on each week's LLM hype train/scandal but last I heard there was no public access to it or public-trusted 3rd parties that can review model's capabilities
What would be really interesting is a side by side Claude Opus 4.7 and Mythos comparison.