DS4 (not 4.1) crossed my dont-care threshold and I genuinely stopped paying attention to new models. I'd love to try GLM 5.3 but I just don't see any point in spending the effort any more. I can get passable intelligence for a bargain price either direct from China or from a ZDR EU provider for a small markup. Paying 10x more will not make me 10x happier, it's unlikely to make me even 1.1x happier now I've got some intuition for the natural limits of these models.
I don't even bother checking how much I spent on API any more, its well under $30 over the past 2 months despite daily constant use. Who even needs a subscription at these numbers?
Wallclock time matters and GLM 5.3, even when it is considerably slower (~30 tokens right now vs 100+ on DeepSeek 4) it is quite frequently faster on the same set of tasks overall. Deepseek 4 seems to do the 'Oh, wait' thing just about forever and has a tendency to find irrelevant rabbit holes that it then spends a massive amount of tokens on.
Yes, and image editors absolutely can. If JXL lets me correct over/underexposed images by default everywhere I find them then it's worth it even just for that reason alone
> This is a pretty grim prognosis for European AI.
I think it's an incomplete read. What's the point in competing for a sizeable percentage of your funding when the finish line is incrementally being moved each month? Better spend it on leapfrogs which they seem to have done.
Meanwhile Mistral have a natural ace in their pocket with respect to regulation in the form of CADA and the Cloud Sovereignty Framework. I can't think of another company that would qualify as SOV-3 under that regime
This interminable argument has been raging at least since the days of the East India Company, I'm sure even Jesus had some thoughts on the preferential relationship the money changers had with the temple. It makes the world go round. All the wealth used to train these models comes from compatible relationships between power and creativity, and we rely on that compatibility. That a regime to lock out US vendors from European infrastructure contracts was even necessary is too fresh a story to reduce it to a complaint as boring as regulatory capture, go ask the folk in Greenland for their thoughts.
As opposed to what? Companies that steal the collective intellect and intellectual property of the entire world? Yeah, what a great alternative. A world where all of your hard work is blatantly stolen.
Ah yes, a red herring, plus my favorite HN hypocrisy, all in one comment.
The 'information wants to be free' crowd complaining about protecting intellectual property now that it threatens their income stream...has to give the patent trolls and the RIAA a delicious bit of schadenfreude.
I invented this react button style with 8px border radius, ChatGPT stole it from me, I want rents!
Non-American maybe, but non-Chinese is likely impractical. We might not want their APIs, but we can't compete on energy and labour for training, even if it means buying licenses to host the weights (which CADA encourages). From China's perspective, what's the case for baking weights they can't sell? Some Chinese models already don't even have the Taiwan politics stuff baked in, those filters are only in their APIs.
I realised after writing this, the EU as is uncomfortably often the case, may be the real forcing function for what happens with US policy irrespective of the media campaigns we're presently seeing. Here's hoping for a steady trickle of stale ChatGPT weights leaking from EU infra providers in the long term.
> we can't compete on energy and labour costs for training,
Specialists are expensive everywhere. China is functionally 80s Japan surrounded by several Brasils and all the frontier AI work is being done in that first part, where labour is expensive - if only due to competition for top talent.
Using Chinese models is a bit like using Chinese solar/batteries instead of American gas.
Yes, if the Chinese stop trading, you can still use the existing solar panels (unlike the gas which you literally set on fire), but it's nonetheless a major vulnerability to not have any local know-how in creating important infrastructure.
Giving up all AI know-how and expertise to China just because they currently share their models would be a generational mistake.
Europe already got burned hard by this sort of thing too recently, and is now very sensitive to strateigic depencencies, and is working hard to lift them where possible.
If trade stopped, AI capability would be the last thing on the minds of administrations in both regions. The question I think is more if EU can't compete (and we know we can't) who the more reliable partner is to depend on, especially where leaning towards dependence on that partner applies pressure to a recently highly unreliable partner.
Yes we absolutely can compete. That's such a dumb defeatist attitude.
And I dont mean actual trade stopping in the case of AI. The CCP could ban the release of Open Weight models tomorrow without running afoul of a single trade treaty
Maybe we lived on different planets at the time, but watching the response at the start of the Ukraine war taught me the EU is little more than a disjointed balancing act with no real potency of its own outside of economic policy, and that seems unlikely to change in my lifetime. We are still buying their gas to this very day.
It's a byproduct of the nannyism safety marketing from the AI companies. I'm glad these cases were caught, but disagree with how they were disposed of. If the automated flagging is good, enforce it by default. If it's noisy, refine the tech then enforce it by default. This middleground where everything going through the platforms is subject to training and arbitrary human inspection in the midst of an acrid cloud of marketing-driven fearmongering is unacceptable, and it reinforces the idea the fearmongering is legitimate.
Somehow humanity survived the past 40 years without Microsoft Word and Excel phoning home and shopping users to the feds at random, I don't see why the standard should be any different for this new class of tooling.
I am trying to make these webpage buildouts more legitimate benchmarks though, as I do think image->html flows are going to become more popular as people realize how good images as a starting point are. Hit me up if you have any feedback!
The consistent reports I'm getting through friends who have spoken to recruiters is just that standards have increased dramatically. Firms accepting only a single candidate CV from a recruiter instead of 5 or more, and the recruiter downstream working their ass off to ensure it is absolutely the best possible CV, because if it's not then they don't get paid.
> Firms accepting only a single candidate CV from a recruiter instead of 5 or more
Why though? I've done hiring before - it takes less than 30 seconds to skim a resume. The recruiters also have no idea what the responsibility is for the jobs they are hiring for - it's a terrible place to bottleneck candidates on.
It sounds like everyone, including recruiters, are being sent on a snipe hunt.
I would guess that with bots and AI, a lot of resumes are not even from real candidates, and those that are, are AI slop. I don't envy recruiters or hiring managers these days.
It's asking a lot to trust they can or will maintain this new pricing. In any case it's exciting to think this might lead to further price cuts in the highly competent and competitive Chinese clones. I'm still using ChatGPT for interactive queries, but at this point pretty much only because of its familiar UI
SpaceX is a different beast with extremely high friction to enter its market, a massive technology lead, and well developed preferential high level relationships with just about every country worth worrying about.
OpenAI/Anthropic meanwhile feel a bit like they're hoping to sell iPhones in a market about to be flooded by $20 flip phones, with almost no channel of their own to do it. And for whatever mad reason OpenAI are now signalling they will attempt to compete on price with flip phones despite their cost of labour, energy, and just about everything else being far higher
Wasn't SpaceX's insane valuation largely based off of Grok, because their rocket and satellite businesses could never be valued at over a trillion $$?
I don't see your metaphor to iphones and flip phones. This new Luna model is cheaper than deepseek 4.1 flash, except for cache reads. OpenAI having to compete with China is a much larger economic-political issue that is far larger than just our AI labs.
Well, they do rug pull constantly. This week and last leading up to this the cost to use Codex was overwhelmingly perceived as terrible. People running out of usage all over the place. Reddit full of people crying. I noticed it myself.
Then they do a new model launch, issue quota resets all around, and it's a party for 2-3 weeks before things return to normal.
It reminds me a bit of what Ansible got right: user communication. The underlying tech may have existed for a long time, but the genius is presenting it to a regular developer in a way that reads "yes, even you can understand ML, just using a little JSON". The contribution of that should not be understated, as has been clearly evident recently.
Arguably, it doesn't. Instead of a team of people doing break-fix on golden images you have that same size team of people doing break-fix on upstream playbooks. Lots of software doesn't achieve the goals but has a huge deployment story; not sure those things have ever been related.
It does "work", you can download ansible today and use it, it does what it says. Is it the greatest solution for all use cases in infrastructure? Of course not, nothing is. Do people misuse it? Of course too, we're all human.
Regardless of what tooling you use, we're all building houses of cards, and depending on the situation, try to hold down those cards as well as we can, balancing a ton of other needs and requirements.
I don't even bother checking how much I spent on API any more, its well under $30 over the past 2 months despite daily constant use. Who even needs a subscription at these numbers?
reply