1,767 karma · joined March 27, 2022
Why does anyone use this company?
>Our search results also include anonymized API calls to all major search result providers worldwide
This isn't necessarily an OpenRouter issue, Google's Gemini will sometimes do it on their own API. Since they summarize reasoning this means you pay the whole cost and can't get anything out of it.
This is not the case for Nitter. It requires real X accounts to run, quite possibly hundreds or thousands for a major public instance. Creating X accounts currently requires phone number verification.
https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/dis...
>These SDKs, which are offered to developers across multiple mobile and desktop platforms, surreptitiously enroll user devices into the IPIDEA network.
If I install an app with a big ToS and buried in there is "we use third-party monetization SDKs" and buried in there is "welcome to our botnet" they do not actually have my consent.
All of the customer service bots I've dealt with recently were reasoning models that thought for multiple seconds. I would not have noticed 50ms extra.
It's all green which means it's working. Ignore the unicorn error on every page.
edit: After 5-10 minutes they got around to opening an incident and (apparently manually?) marking the API as having 'degraded performance'.
> $lid=(Get-ItemProperty 'HKCU:SOFTWAREMicrosoftIdentityCRLExtendedProperties').LID
which obviously does not work because it has all the slashes removed. Article author apparently didn't bother to proofread anything.
Everything other than full self-hosting has this exact power
So not only is this article AI-written, but the testing was entirely done by AI, too? I can't see any other reason to use such an old model.
> Our traffic passes through a local LLM gateway that wraps requests in its own envelope, a constant we measured at roughly 6,200 tokens with bare calibration requests
Why do you need to do calibration requests to figure out how your own gateway is affecting requests?
> Its subagent lane did not complete cleanly through our gateway
> We attempted to toggle extended thinking in both harnesses and are declining to publish numbers. Our gateway applies its own thinking policy, neither harness's toggle demonstrably survived the path, and anything we quoted would be noise.
Why is your own gateway screwing with your testing?
That's awesome, glad to hear it
>Our safety assessments found that Sonnet 5 shows an overall lower rate of undesirable behaviors than Sonnet 4.6, and is generally safer to use in agentic contexts.
which is obviously painting that as a good thing. So reading the next sentence as "in other good news" is reasonable.