eek2121

Admittedly, I didn't click your link, however, based on what you've stated, there is some inaccuracy. All these big companies take your requests and the context, and route it based on the content, cost, etc.

What Anthropic presents as Opus 5.5 isn't actually a single model...it's Anthropic's ecosystem as a whole. If you are lucky, you get the top model handling your issues all the time, however, that never happens. What really happens is that your request and content are graded along with your subscription (example: API? subscription, if so, what tier? how much has the user used it? Do we trust the user? how much? how much are they paying? are they asking something we think is dangerous?) and your request and context are routed accordingly.

Anthropic isn't alone in this behavior, Open AI does it as well, just look at the respective subreddits on reddit for both if you need some examples, or just play around with the various models from both companies.

There are a few folks who've done some analysis on this (their findings were posted on reddit and X), and a bigger multi-national study is apparently coming, though I admittedly don't know their findings.

I guess the tl;dr is that Anthropic and Open AI are actually selling you "best-effort" routers, so you may or may not get the best in class model, and only they get to determine if you do or do not. No guarantees.

Depends on the service.

I feel like everyone here forgets that the DRAM industry is operated by one big cartel. The rules of supply and demand don't apply here. Now that prices are up, they will keep it up, cutting supply as needed in order to do so. Every big DRAM manufacturer in the industry has been charged with price fixing, among other things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing

There are so few players in this space they can coordinate and collude pretty easily.

Maybe you should create whoisinspacewithnoads.com? :D

Sites are getting too overzealous with blocking IMO. I got blocked for several hours by huggingface simply because my download didn't complete and I had to retry. It gave me error 429, suggested I login, and the login page wouldn't load because error 429.

A popular tech news site blocked my phone because of Apple Private Relay. That didn't last long because their traffic fell off a cliff when that happened.

Many sites are throwing more captchas at the problem, without understanding that captchas don't actually help with LLMs, they just hinder normal users and primitive scripts. LLMs solve captchas just fine.

Some big sites have put up improved paywalls. I'm fine with subscribing to a quality site, however, WSJ and all the other big media sites routinely spit out regurgitated garbage that can be had for free elsewhere (and due to political spin, their garbage is less valuable than the free versions of said content).

Some folks are declaring the internet dead. I wouldn't go that far, however, I will say that a reckoning is going to happen, especially when advertisers figure out that most ads served on basically every website are no longer viewed by humans.

Correct:Also, archive.* has actively edited archived sites to promote their agenda. Why folks continue to use them confuses me. One would think the big wikipedia purge would curb such behavior.

Enabled them, you mean. LLMs are basically really advanced auto completion engines. They have no real desire to do anything. The HF incident was absolutely staged along with other incidents that have been brought up.

Before you assume I am being paranoid, where is the case where a random person running any of the open models had their LLMs break out of a sandbox and hack a site? If you think "they" (LLMs) did that, have you even taken a moment to understand what LLMs are and how they work?

It's all nonsense to try and pump up potential IPOs and also an attempt to create regulatory capture.

You are looking at this backwards. The average user DOES hold the site complicit. The issue is that there are many hundreds of millions (possibly billions) of sites serving Google ads. 1 user avoiding/blacklisting 1 site due to scam/spam ad won't even be a rounding error to most sites, and it is nothing at all to Google. Given that the internet has evolved to be ad-driven, of which Google is a major player, you also aren't going to convince sites to stop serving Google ads.

The change has to start with Google, and they can't be bothered to do so, thus far.

The second you load JS onto your page, you lose that ability, you know that, right? the scammy ads aren't limited to that tiny little box you designate for ads. Advertisers work around that limitation pretty easily, and you should also probably read AdSense terms of service before doing too much to blame google. Some of the language will surprise you.

Sure, cross-platform frameworks were great. I do think LLMs are changing the game, however. If you have a robust set of tests, it's much easier to maintain native versions of an app, compared to the past.

What is this nonsense even about? Site I’ve never heard of making bombastic claims without any citations. Can someone please provide context and sources? Because this looks like a hoax or something?

Edit: just so we are clear, I’ve no idea what A/I is, the linked page gave no details, nor do the current top comments. The current top comment is rambling about free shell accounts and stuff. The ones I read after that were mourning the loss of this mysterious site/service/something. Does anyone want to clueinthe rest of us?

I suspect they no longer recommend either because either can download/execute scripts that Mozilla can't review, and the recommended extensions are reviewed, so they don't want to give users the wrong impression.

I could be wrong, however.

IMO, That's the case for all subject areas. It is also one area where AI excels at, and it could be of real use if we can find a way to stop hallucinations. The sum of all knowledge being at our finger tips would allow everyone to focus on the hard stuff.

Size is an issue, but it isn't just about size. Ideally, agile development builds linearly in complexity. Rather than dumping a huge new feature, first introduce the building blocks and the reason you are introducing them, then the glue that ties them together, then the actual feature.

From what I've seen (not in software dev anymore, however I've been in it for close to 30 years), AI just tends to pile everything in, and it is very hard to review. No public model performs even average under the rules I've mentioned.

Also, simply breaking up a PR doesn't count if instead you dump all the PRs on maintainers at once. Humans are the bottleneck here, and can only review so much at once. If i were still involved in PR reviews, it doesn't matter if you gave me a single 4,000 line PR or 4 1,000 line PRs, I"d reject them.

What I want to see. Small, easily reviewable features with a build up to the main course, along with a good explanation for each. After that? I'd probably still reject it for a breach of code standards, or documentation, or because I don't like you sending me a PR at 4:59pm on a Friday. ;)

Humans also can't blindly rely on AI for review, so the models (more precisely, the folks building the underlying stuff) must adapt.

ALL chip designs are an exercise of minmaxing these 3 variables:

1) power

2) performance

3) die area

SOME chip designs also care about a 4th:

4) die area.

NO design has the best of all...it is impossible since you have to trade 1 for another. The reason x86 has been dominate for so long is that is strikes a good balance across all areas, especially #4. A good balance is what you need for a good chip.

EDIT: oh and you can't beat the system I mentioned above. The laws of physics are the reason why.

Started reading, however I wanted to add this in: a lot of people expect RISC-V to do too many things, and nearly all of those things are "beat every other architecture out there in every way/shape/form, while also being open".

The reality? The fastest "available" RISC-V CPUs don't match the best chips in terms of speed, power consumption, or die area. "available" obviously means the chips that have been released to the public and can be independently benchmarked.

I do think that is okay, however I also think that those involved with RISC-V aren't helping much, and current attempts at standardizing seem to be just creating a bigger problem.

That being said, RISC-V does seem to perform well in specific niches.

IMO this is getting hyped because the 27b version runs on a decent gaming GPU. This is NOT a thread for their largest model, this model will run on a mid-high end gaming PC, which you probably have in your household. Mine is 6 years old and it runs quite well.

I haven't tried lowering thinking, however, I actually asked a solid question earlier regarding a real world scenario I encountered and all that excessive thinking made it give me an amazing answer. The thinking actually all made sense, and honestly I found it thought of similar stuff to what I thought when I drew my own conclusion.

I don't usually rely on AI for much (I'm actually kind of anti-AI, although I follow stuff like this enthusiastically because of the rapid advancements, "average joe" access, and openness), however for what I asked? It was spot on.

The subject was a bit personal, so I won't share. I was just curious what AI would say about the situation and it definitely surprised me, especially since Qwen, while usually great on development/coding stuff, has shown weaknesses in other areas.

Definitely a solid release, and this one runs on my 4090 with minimal loss of quality!

Thinking is turned up to max by default. You can turn it down. Unsure why they did this.

thinking is set to max by default. I bet that turning it down would solve this.

Everyone focuses on the frontier models, and they act like everything else is useless. The gap between say, Qwen 3.8 and the frontier models is not as large as you assume, and things on the local front have made significant gains in the past year. That is WHY Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. are worried. They NEED customers to pay top dime for top performance, but if you can spend 95% less money for 95% of the performance of the latest, bleeding edge model from Anthropic, you know which one you'd pick. Most folks don't need that extra 5-10%, especially since the cheaper models will catch up anyway.

Some models have built in cellular as well, so it's possible to use one without your phone entirely.

No, we absolutely do not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB

For starters, The slowest sticks of DDR(x) are often slower than DDR(x-1). The issue is never capacity, but rather, performance.

The real nonsense? USB? It's a mess. Pick a USB cable and buy it from ANY retailer, let's make it easier, buy a USB-C cable. What is the data rate (depends on cable quality and length), Does it support power delivery? If so, how many watts? (~5W requires a very different cable from ~230W), how do you know from simply looking at the cable? If you buy a cable, how can you tell what it supports by simply looking at the connector? Imagine having a box full of USB-C cables. Could you tell me how fast each of those cables are? (The cables themselves don't! Many don't have any markngs at all, and if they do, the markings could be fraudulent)

RAM does not have that issue. A stick fits or it doesn't. Sure, there are a huge range of speeds, however, that range has a ballpark (JEDEC defines the ballpark, the "cartels" make the memory and push out some faster stuff).

While there are definite exceptions (I was bitten by one recently), you can generally plug in a DDR5 DIMM and expect it to work in the system.

The same cannot be said for USB. Some USB cables ONLY deliver power. Some only work with certain devices. I've USB-C (!!!) cables that only work with the devices they are shipped with, and even more annoyingly, the both may be true! ASUS (!!!) ships MOTHERBOARDS that can only pair with vital hardware via very specific USB-C cables (Strix Hive) and "GLORIOUS" ain't so glorious. Their mouses warn you not to use other USB-C cables, and they are right, depending on the make/model/generation, you can brick your "glorious" peripheral.

No, USB nonsense needs to stay far away from anything else.

Also, the reason this is a huge issue is because the memory makers are cartels. Only a few of them exist, they gang up and bully EVERYONE and nobody has ever invested money to create a competitor due to this, except China, which of course means that the U.S. and portions of the E.U. are insta-banning/trying to insta-ban, even though it is really freaking hard to install spyware on a memory module.

This is neat!

Disagree. Why connect them to the internet? They should be super hardened against attacks, and should NOT have a physical connection to the internet. Same with electrical infrastructure. Network access? Possibly, however that network should NOT be accessible from the internet.

The only exception I can think of would be for meter reading, which should be a separate, read only device with no ability to do harm altogether.

My immediate thought upon clicking the link referenced in the article, is that the first thing I see is at first glance looks like astrological signs taking up the entire height of the page.

I'm not defending Apple at all (I'm a developer, I've not specifically worked on apps for iDevices, however I've worked closely with those that take our platforms and tie them into those apps at many companies and startups)

I've also not finished reading the article, however right away, based on what I've read, I see the problem. Apple reviews a thousands upon thousands of apps a day, and the folks reviewing those apps (and now, AI) aren't going to continue to review an app when they see a potential violation. It is up to the app developer to be clear and concise.

Apple is a pain to deal with, I get that. However, I see why it was rejected. Continuing to read the article now.

EDIT: read the rest of it. My take is that they are probably employing AI based upon the odd response (which is dumb, also note, Apple has been using forms of machine learning for years to assist with this stuff. When I say AI, I specifically refer to LLMs).

Something that I think folks really need to pay attention to, however, is the first impression. The app reviewer doesn't just hit a reject button and call it a day. They take notes. Notes that aren't shared with you, just among folks that may review it again in the future. When it is re-reviewed, those notes are taken into consideration and given a ton of weight. That is why it is important to give a perfect presentation the first time around. If you have 30 seconds to re-review an app that was rejected and you have notes (and possibly a screenshot or two? I don't know if Apple does that part) of what was presented during the previous review, you aren't going to do a whole bunch of investigating if it looks like nothing has changed. You have deadlines that impact your performance review, you will move on and rubber stamp the re-review. The next level up will take slightly longer, etc.

It’s not hard to make a functional standard, the USB folks just don’t care, IMO. If they had simply worked on better naming, things would be much more clear.

(now they’d need to do something crazy like USB-C 40G PD60 as a name in order to fix things, unless the next version of USB is a clean break)

Now they’ve made a mess of things, and cables AND connectors are all over the place.

Definitely a regional problem. Also, why are you folks wholesale signing up for text message notifications? If you didn't, ask yourself how they got your number? If you use a site that actually requires a number, give them a Google Voice number.

However, here in the U.S. my iPhone immediately tosses these messages into spam. The same with Google Voice. I've not given out my actual phone number to anyone, and if someone requires it, I give them the GV number. If they don't accept that number they don't get my business (I think that has happened like three times in the past decade).

General rule of thumb: ignore random messages, calls, and emails. If you have doubts/worries, look up the official number for the company/service and call that.

I saw another post on reddit with something like a hundred trillion dollar bill. I wish I had saved that link to share it, the comments were quite comical!

One of the big rules of commerce is that competing on price is generally a no-no for large markets. Usually, the powers that be would rather compete on a perceived value; that is how “informal price collusion” works.

Price/cost is the last thing you compete on unless you have a wholesale advantage, which nobody in this particular industry does (visa/mastercard set core rates)

Source: I’ve worked with higher ups in numerous commerce operations.

Commerce is actually even worse than many realize. Look up pepsi and walmart as a small example.