A chunk better than Deepseek 1017, at half the parameter count, BUT it's only a base model, not finetuned to follow instructions.
Strange to release a model in this state. OpenAI is also "probably" releasing new models (sources within OpenAI talking about Sol 6.2 and the like). We must be getting really close to the Qwen4 releases.
Many others, e.g. Google and NVIDIA, have also released such BASE models.
For those with the knowledge and resources needed to finalize the training, BASE models are much more useful than completely trained models.
BASE models are the next best thing after truly open-source LLMs, where you would have access to the complete dataset used for training. Besides the fact that nobody who had used a really big dataset wants to show it, due to possible legal problems, having access to the original dataset would not be helpful for most people, because they would not be able to use it to make an LLM, due to its huge size and due to the vast resources required for pre-training.
On the other hand, continuing training from a BASE model, which is greatly compressed in comparison with the original dataset, is feasible for many.
> There should just be a line of cars waiting to pick you up and you get in line and that car ...
This one is not law. That absolutely exists ... but airports demand money for taxis to join that line of customers and so these got more expensive and are never the cheap option.
German and American cars who aren't getting subsidized by the government, in fact they actually have to pay taxes. In addition to the fact that China is letting companies destroy it's environment.
Nowadays I doubt that the US government is any better than China's in letting companies destroy the environment.
Moreover, I always wonder how Americans accuse China of subsidizing its industries, while I never hear about any serious investment done by any big US company that is not conditioned by huge tax reductions.
All the kinds of fiscal facilities that the big US companies receive from the state or federal governments would be strictly forbidden in most places of Europe, as being a form of state help that distorts competition.
Directly from the repeated declarations of people in high positions of the US government, including the POTUS himself, who have bragged about their efforts for removing all the environmental regulations that supposedly make the US companies lose money and make them less competitive.
I am too lazy to search now for quotations, but already the POTUS has referred to this subject so frequently that it should not be difficult to find such examples yourself.
Attempting nonetheless a very short search, one of the first entries is a New York Times article that says:
"The Trump administration has dismantled nearly 100 policies focused on clean air, water, wildlife and toxic chemicals"
The following is not a joke, but it is an official statement published on the White House site:
"The Administration approved 76 coal-related permits to reinvigorate America’s beautiful, clean coal industry."
Also from the White House official site:
"“In this Administration, NEPA’s regulatory reign of terror has ended,” said White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Katherine Scarlett. "
I am pretty certain that on paper today China has environmental regulations at least as strict as those of USA.
Nonetheless, it is very likely that in many places they are not enforced, except perhaps when they might be used to punish someone who fell in disgrace for other reasons.
No, retarded territorial accounting practices assign PRC made goods as PRC emissions but US fossil extraction as foreign consumer emissions. US emissions substantially up factoring in all the net oil export from fracking and NG fugitive leaks from shit gas infra. On paper US shed 1 mbt co2e/year from paper peak, but factor in oil/ng exports and leaks, US napkin math up 1.5 bmt co2e/year (-1 mbt reductions + 2 mbt from export + 0.5 mbt from fugitive emissions/leaks), i.e. 20% over US paper peak. If we want to be geopolitically cheeky, US majors also planning to restart Venezuela oil, so add another 10% / 0.5 bmt for every mbd US decides to bring online in VZ, because US can't seem to stop fossil.
Meanwhile PRC annual renewable production wipes about 100m barrel of oil energy equivalent per day over their life time, i.e. comparable to global oil consumption - they are functionally preventing oil use from doubling. To reiterate: every year, PRC is averting equivalent of 100m barrels of future oil consumption. For mental picture that's carbon sink size of 500,000 sqkm of rainforest, i.e. equal to planting 7% of Amazon per year. Literally the greatest emission aversion machine in human history - PRC functionally preventing so much emissions its net carbon foot print is negative if you use sensible attributions.
Nope. Trade corrected CO2 is also going down. And the scheme you're talking about is just double counting CO2 for producers. Why not just go all in on that and zero out any country that doesnt extract carbon sources!
Garbage in stats creates garbage out. Hence pointing out NONE biased garbage accounting that attributes emissions directly to extractor/producer like we do goods. AKA still single counts but shifts attribution - every barrel PRC imports? Discount emissions from PRC. Every barrel US exports, include as US emissions. Every solar panel that will avoid X emissions... credit that to PRC. See where this is going?
> Why not just go all in on that and zero out any country that doesnt extract carbon sources!
We should in fact, totally do that, aka on going GHG Protocol Scope3 Cat11 battleground, among others. Precisely to address statistically context illiterate claims like muh Murican emissions went down and muh trade corrected co2 went down because legacy (itself politicized) accounting standards specifically masks / offloads emissions extracted from US onto their customers. Shifting emissions to extractor responsibility is heavily politicized / lobbied against by US fossil industry to make US #s look better. But that's all it is, fabricated numbers for lame aktually arguments that somehow export oil cleaner than domestic coal... Maybe on a spreadsheet, using biased formulas, for useful idiots to quote. But in reality US extracted stupendous amount of new emissions from the ground vs paper peak.
Like US become the worlds largest fossil exporter, high consumption population grew by 50m, went from dirty coal to even worse leaky NG (more lobby shenanigans) and somehow have the audacity to claim US contribution to emissions is somehow down without realizing the double think involved to reach such conclusion. The US emits more than ever, it's just good at lobbying so spreadsheets say it isn't.
I don't understand how people make this claim about PRC ... there's 2 obvious facts:
1) China's government does not care, in the slightest, about the environment. Their big worry is energy independence, well lack of energy independence, which due to climate change has some overlap, but enough pictures have leaked about Chinese mines to establish that basic measures to protect the environment are not being taken.
This is also the only reason China has an advantage in rare earths, for example. Luckily now we have South America "promising to respect", and US and EU promising to believe, that they are now friendly to the environment. Of course, the first leaks have already come in, and what do you know? They lied (specifically Brazil under Bolsonaro lied, we'll see if things change now), and the EU is refusing to investigate as per traditional EU commission practice (which is very strict laws, very selective enforcement, especially when it comes to enforcement against governments or government companies)
2) While western countries lie, there's none that lie like China lies. In the sense that any number coming out of PRC is government-approved at the very least. Government-made-up more likely. They lie and lie and lie and lie. E.g. the 2007 housing crash is still happening in China, badly enough to get people constantly complaining about it because it's still stealing their savings. But on the official figures? Everything's fine! There was the incident just last year with Indian workers taking pictures of Beijing's (best city) homeless. An endless street with homeless encampments on both sides, as far as the camera could see (at least 300m). Homelessness, just like gays, don't exist in China. I don't understand why people laugh out loud when an Iranian politician says there are no gays in Iran, but nobody cares if ... And of course it's a lie. According to CCP there is no porn in China. Okay, now go to Youtube red and search ...
This combines to: the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of China's economic activity being horrible beyond belief for the environment, and you're just believing propaganda.
A hilarious fact is how many still insist on believing this even though Deborah Seligsohn, the literal environment / science officer at US embassy beijing who installed those sensors claimed otherwise. PRC Ministry of Environment had accurate sensors before US embassy stunt, they just used 24 hour average instead of live data. They also built out national sensor network early 2010s. Can't get horse brain damaged on US LIOtard koolaid to drink etc etc repeat x1000.
Which is reflection of your susceptibility to LIO propaganda.
1.
I did not claim PRC cares about environment. Well except they do, like when they shut down / relocate factories because people complaining. But that's response to populous sentiment.
What I assert, correctly (elsewhere in this chain), is that the downstream outcome of both energy / industrial policy on emissions. That US becoming fossil exporter has, in reality increased it's net emissions. That PRC becoming renewable juggernaut has in reality generated massive carbon sink and averted massive future emissions.
2.
What gov approved numbers did I use. Like number of renewable installation is trivially checked, cross border renewable trade as well. This all outdoor infra one can monitor on geospatial. The issue isn't countries propagandaize, it's LIOtards are so brainwashed and innumerate that they think somehow they less retarded useful idiots because they have access to muh free press even though their worldview shaped by captured fabricated press - just utter NPC tier smooth brain media literacy, at least those who grew up under PRC media tend to know know how to be universally skeptical.
Like your entire point 2) is symptomatic of this retardation. Official econ news talk about housing drag from 3RL all the time. There's barely any, not no homeless in most PRC cities, and basically no chronic, i.e. homeless gets shoved somewhere. Gays are everywhere, just not promoted (no approval, no disapproval, no promotion). Porn is banned but trivially accessible via vpn, or back in the good old days go through hutongs to find bootleg. Like basically all your points can simply be summarized by you acknowledging "I don't understand", which in some self awareness you have have acknowledged twice.
3.
lol no, PRC official propaganda trash, like their old uncles aren't brazen enough to outright claim downstream effect of PRC renewable push overwhelmingly makes PRC responsible for creating the largest manufactured carbon sink in anthropocentric history. That's what makes it most hilarious, PRC optimizing selfishly for domestic energy security made it global renewable savior as happenstance. They're doing more for the environment than the west granola eaters, and they don't, actually fucking care, it's just on net balance they are now the greatest emission aversion force on earth. PRC is the ideal emission aversion engine, you may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.
America divesting from Europe on defense is not something Trump is causing, and while I'm sure there will be token changes, fundamentally things will stay the same. Even if a democrat president was elected that would still be true.
Europe's energy conundrum is caused by Germany (Gerhard Schroder to be exact, ex-leader of SPD in case you're wondering, currently paid very well by Putin's Gazprom and special guest at Putin's 74th birthday party earlier this year, and continued by Angela Merkel, who was also invited but at least had the good sense not to attend) essentially forcing Europe to switch to Russian natural gas. Now the gas distribution networks, are being dismantled at a cost of about some 400 euros per European. The increase in energy prices is costing at least 3000 per year per European, and while the Iran was is 25% responsible for that, Russia is 75% responsible.
Europe's economy was betting on China as an export market and inflation-stopper. That was another choice essentially forced on Europe by Germany, and another bafflingly stupid choice. THAT choice by Germany (again under Angela Merkel), not AI, not the Iran war, not even Russia-Ukraine is the big reason jobs are disappearing in the EU.
And Europe's defense was betting on US ... despite US objecting to that since at least 2006 (Bush Jr was president at the time). Now Europe is refusing to pay for it's defense (Europe's "help" to Ukraine is really overwhelmingly loans, not actual help). Europe is also spending 900 billion dollars per year until at least 2030 on things that are intended to not help anyone and destroy economy and lives. And in case you think "refusing to spend" doesn't make sense, that's because it's all Europe lending from international markets at huge interest rates, guaranteeing that all Europeans pay MORE for this in the future. In case you're wondering 900 billion divided by 500 million EU citizens is another 2000 per year in extra taxes that's coming. But no worries: you're not being taxed extra for it yet, only the interest on it.
EU's current difficulties are all self-inflicted choices from 10 years ago. A democrat congress will do less than nothing to change this.
>essentially forced on Europe by Germany, and another bafflingly stupid choice.
When will Europe learn its lesson and stop letting itself ruined by German leaders? Bonus points if their Austrian born :)
>Europe's "help" to Ukraine is really overwhelmingly loans, not actual help
Loans is the only way the EU can give money from the ECB but those loans will be written off, Ukraine won't pay back anything. It's how the EU gives money.
>EU's current difficulties are all self-inflicted choices from 10 years ago.
A lot more than 10 years. At least 20 years of mismanagement and of kicking the can down the road on topics that were known issues way back then.
In fact I'm running qwen3.8-flash-next with a Playwright-mcp docker and it is far better for scraping than my ChatGPT or Claude subscription, for the simple reason that sites aren't lying to Playwright.
I don't understand, your subscription models can also use Playwright, you don't even need to setup an mcp, they'll automatically download playwright-cli and get going.
Or perhaps I should say: what about safety? Not that any of the billionaire AI companies could have been created if they actually cared about (legal, mostly) safety ... so perhaps you should just go ahead and ignore it.
There are "snap" products that safely release with 15-25 newtons of force, which is the safety recommendation for lanyards. There are also simple release knots that are used in paracord lanyards, but IMO the snap products are better because they're more reliable (especially with different cord material) and more foolproof generally.
reply