NorwegianDude

Bigger and still worse than existing free Chinese models that are smaller? Open weight models are nice, but at this point it seems western models are very far behind Chinese ones, despite Chinese companies publishing a lot of their findings. I hope we get more open models and more providers, as being stuck with a model from China or US with no competition is risky.

Google does do a great job with Gemma models. It's one of the few language models actually good at language. OpenAI's top closed models can't even write norwegian correctly.

As you say, the driver skill is very different between F1 and GT3. If traction control was allowed in F1, the teams would not settle for something like in GT3, it would become an arms race. In the end we might end up with racing determined by who has the best control algorightms, and not who has the best dirver/chassis.

Codex/ChatGPT Pro 20x isn't really a thing now, they have disabled it a week or two ago.

OpenAI didn't mess up. The model would have been 100 % pointless and obsolete without the large price cuts it got, because of the cheap Chinese models.

The open models are getting closer and closer, and because they're open, people are not forced to pay the silly markup that is often over 1000x the cost to serve the model.

There is no fixed tariff in Europe like you are quoting. It varies.

The US even said it was Iran who did it. The US has literally become the least trustworthy nation in the world by lying about everything, threatening to go to war against allies for no other reason than wanting the land...

This must be satire? Makes no sense. OpenAI isn't worth anywhere close to $800B. The gap to open models is shrinking fast, and it seems that many companies will have models with around the same capabilities.

And have you guys seen the compression ratio of models capabilities? The new Qwen3.8 27B is insane. I can run it at 85-95 tokens per second on my personal PC, and it is, according to artificial analysis benchmarks, around the same level as GPT 5.4 xhigh from march, OpenAIs leading model at that time.

If things keep going this way, OpenAI and it's infrastructure is worth...very little.

If the benchmarks are a real indication, we now have a local model that is runnable on a high-end personal PC that trades blows with the leading model Claude Opus 4.6 Max from half a year ago.

Insane if that is the case. Downloading now!

llama.cpp has router mode these days, swapping out models for you, you no longer need llama-swap.

But also remember that while the API cost might be >50x the subscription cost, the actual cost to run it is much much cheaper.

It will only become cheaper as models become more efficient.

That is the most recent Qwen and Google models, there is no newer version, yet. Qwen3.8 27B might come in a couple of days tho, if it's launched alongside the large one when the Qwen3.8 countdown reaches zero.

Well, I can run some models that are better than some of the weaker and cheaper Anthropic models locally, like Haiku 4.5, and solve tasks that would cost ~4500$ every day in tokens, so yeah, they are definitely extremely profitable on inference.

Eh, what are you guys even talking about? Deepseek is not cheapest provider as is, and it's MIT. So deepseek making it more expensive to use is just nonsense, they can only change their own pricing. It's the beauty of MIT license and open weights. If anything, these models are some of the safest in the world to use if you worry about a rug pull.

You can get easily over 100 tok/s on the Gemma 4 31B QAT if you enable MTP. Same goes for the 27B. I'm getting 880 tok/s of throughout on a single RTX 5090 for batch tasks.

While most don't, there are developers who actually do understand systems from end to end. Most developers are terrible developers, compared to the really good ones.

I've been running a small game dev studio for ~20 years, and the one change I think must be made, is to ban the usage of "buy" when it comes to games. Games are licensed, not bought, and that should be crystal clear to those who are paying.

Most of the games people play runs using proprietary software and/or licenses, and often on very specific hardware, with game features that makes sense for the amount of players the game has. Requiring that people should be able to play such games if the company stops running it would completely change and limit how games are developed, and in many cases require a completely different version of the game to be co-developed in case people stop playing it. It would with 100 % certainty result in slower development, fewer games, and worse games.

I do of course think that developers should try to make games playable without the company being involved, within reason. Some games that do not have licensing issues or complicated server backends as a requirement could be made available without too much work. But for things like e.g. MMORPGs it's nearly impossible. If your ever developed bigger software systems you know how many moving parts are involved, so just imagine the difficulty of making it work on consumer machines...

A common extreme misconception is that inference is expensive and that providers are loosing a lot of money. Inference is extremely lucrative and profitable.

But you are talking about Europe. If the US and Europe were to cut all ties they would both face some serious consequences, and the US wouldn't be able to do anything about that, not strategically or military. The US need trust in order to function, and attacking would loose them all trust globally, making it much much more severe than anything any other nations would struggle with.

Hey! We Norwegians have on average more ownership in US tech companies than Americans!

Everything is going according to plan. When we have majority, we'll move the companies to Norway, but don't tell anyone, this is supposed to be a secret. /s

To be fair, it would be a bigger issue for the US. No country is more economically dependant on the rest of the world than the US. The US is living on the USD, and if others stop using it the US would have to do extreme cuts on everything.

The price, processed tokens, and output can be anything, it just depends on what GPU it is.

Nvidia GPUs are much more efficient than Apple hardware for inference(and training).

Cause I'm not trying to fool you in order to make money off you, and it should not be hard to understand that it is impossible to create a usable reply to a text someone sends you if you can't see the text.

The proper way to implement it is to issue digital IDs and use ZK proofs to verify the age. That way the service doesn't know anything other that the fact that you have an official digital ID and that you are at least a certain age. The ID issuer does not need to be involved in anything other than issuing the ID, making it perfect when it comes to privacy, while still fulfilling the goal of having an age limit.

If this is built on open standards, so that anyone can use it for free, it would be a big positive step forward for everyone.

A dark, but not totally unfair take: It makes it easier for Apple to take payment for the models others provide, and even allows Apple, if they want to, to use the data to build a dataset for training their own models based on how users use third party models. It's only on Apple devices this API is used, so they split up the market by not letting developers use the same system if they want things to work on iOS, locking users even more in.

You are creating a 3D model when you scan using Pokémon Go. Difference in lenses doesn't matter, that only matters for the scanning step.

No reasonable person relies on Apple's statements as facts. That said by Apple's laywers, and is especially true here. Apple can access the data if they want, and so can Google and Nvidia.

Exactly. That page objectively proves that Apple can't be trusted and breaks their promises.

> The company reiterated that Apple Intelligence relies on on-device processing and Private Cloud Compute, with a promise that user data is only used to execute the immediate request and is not accessible to Apple or third parties. Apple added that outside experts can verify those privacy guarantees "at any time."

Yes, the "Apple needs to look at your data to do this, but we don't have any way to look at the data if we wanted to". That's impossible, unless they open souce iOS and let people take control over their devices, and let people self host inference, so people can check that there is no network traffic. If it is as they say, they could let people host it without any downsides.

Most people seems to have switched to Valkey, and it's backed by the Linux foundation.

Hacker news doesn't generate much traffic, despite what people are saying.

The host here has a limit of 160000 files served each day. That is extremely low. If the site has an icon, css, a js file and a few images it's 10 files each visit. That's will limit it to 16k visits/day. If there are more files loaded it might just handle a few thousand visits, and they have received more than that from HN now.