| ▲ | jdw64 4 hours ago |
| Personally, when I use open code or routers, I feel that beyond a certain level, the models don't make a huge difference to me. Except for expensive and mediocre models like Gemini. In that sense, Chinese models are pretty good. I usually write code in function or method units and then design and assemble them together. GPT series models are more thorough and better, but I'm not sure if the difference is enormous. It seems to depend on the workflow, but in my opinion, if you are thorough enough, I wonder if there really is a big difference |
|
| ▲ | sjanes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I've kind of given up on the routers for "free" inference, as you would expect, they tend to give you sub-par thinking because they are obviously trying to conserve as much inference as possible. I've had some success turning my macbook M1 pro into a heating pad with Qwen 3.6 35B A3B MTP. Trying to use Gemini models "locally" resulted in a similar "short shrift" of effort resulting in mistakes and lots of turns. The reports of Fable being relentlessly "proactive" shows you can go the other direction as well, if you have strong enough branding and effective invoicing. |
| |
| ▲ | WalterGR an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > The reports of Fable being relentlessly "proactive" For the curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48498573 - “Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive”. | |
| ▲ | mft_ 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Tangent: did the MTP help you at all? I’ve tested that model back to back on my M1 Max MBP and the MTP version was actually marginally worse. I wonder if I didn’t use the right settings, although I tried several based on the obvious sources. |
|
|
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In my experience, there's little difference between implementing individual functions between frontier models and SotA ~30B param models. Once you have a coherent design (the hard part), you can feed it to a pretty small model and get basically the same quality. They'll not one-shot, but they're faster and cheaper, so it still works out in your favor. Plus you can do it locally... |
| |
| ▲ | jdw64 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have a similar experience. However, when including code review, I think the GPT model is the most impressive |
|
|
| ▲ | regularfry 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The difference in outcome isn't that big but yes, you need to be more rigorous. For instance I've found that the Kimi K2.5 and K2.6 models will comment out failing tests rather than fix a problem they just caused (mistaking them for "pre-existing failures"), so you need to specifically make commented-out tests break the build. I've not personally had that problem with any of the Anthropic or OpenAI models. |
|
| ▲ | dcreater 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I really hope we stop using the term "Chinese models". It has this air of Negative connotation. It's the equivalent of calling cars Japanese, which people used to do but now is almost entirely meaningless. You just call them Toyota, Honda, Lexus etc. |
| |
| ▲ | sroerick 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know, I tried using one of the Chinese models and it was VERY quick to scan my entire home dir, so maybe your threat surface is a little different than mine | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | esafak 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think "Chinese" is pejorative in this context any more than "American" is. They are one of the two ecosystems. What's wrong with saying "Japanese cars" today? | | |
| ▲ | kennywinker 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > What's wrong with saying "Japanese cars" today? Only that it’s a fairly meaningless grouping. When japan first entered the car market in north america there might have been some commonality, but now what characteristics do they share that some american cars don’t have? They’re not even imported a lot of the time. Given that, it does start to feel tinged with racism if someone insists on grouping things together that don’t really belong together. As for Chinese LLMs, the term doesn’t “feel” pejorative to me - but i also don’t see a totally clear set of attributes they share. Not all are open-weight. Some are small and can be run on consumer hardware, some are huge. They even have a variety of answers to what happened june 3rd 1989 | | |
| ▲ | Brendinooo an hour ago | parent [-] | | > now what characteristics do they share that some american cars don’t have? Typically the answer is "reliability", which is a positive trait, which makes the original callout about negative connotations very odd to me. | | |
| ▲ | overfeed an hour ago | parent [-] | | Chinese AI models also share a positive trait: they offer more bang for the buck. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dcreater 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sadly there is a pejorative context. The constant us, the free world vs China, the evil Soviets rhetoric from every major news establishment and executive creates that negative view | | |
| ▲ | fuck_google 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | On the other hand the Trump administration has successfully managed to make Chinese seem better than American, so there might not be that much of a pejorative context any more.. |
|
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They are all funded and owned by the same entity, the CCP, so it probably would be better to call them CCP models. Edit: Downvoting something doesn't make it false. | | |
| ▲ | SubiculumCode 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | For those that don't like calling them CCP models, may I remind you, the CCP won't let Chinese AI researchers out of the country any more without securing approval first[1]. [1] https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell... | |
| ▲ | jdw64 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I tend to agree with the comment in my reply thread about whether we really need to add biased modifiers to the essence of a good product. I think every national system in this world is flawed. And in this context, 'China or Chinese' is often used in a negative sense, like 'Made in China'. But KIMI is a good model, and I think the comment that pointed this out to me correctly identified my unconscious bias. And even if the Chinese Communist Party provided funding, the result is still transparently released. So even if it is some kind of propaganda, I don't see what the problem is. Is the monopolistic greed of American companies 'good', and China's greed 'bad'? I do have that question. | | |
| ▲ | SubiculumCode 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The question is not whether it is a good model, it is whether the model can be trusted to not act intentionally maliciously against certain topics or certain users. We live in a time of a great geopolitical rivalry and high tensions with an emergent technology with tons of national security implications. To pretend otherwise is silly, and to fail to ask the question, dangerous. | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Whether or not it's propaganda is different from the fact that it is owned by the CCP. | | |
| ▲ | kouteiheika an hour ago | parent [-] | | Doesn't matter, because they're open-weight, so I can just download them to my PC and... hey, look, now they're owned by me! Unlike the "good" Western counterparts which are all fully proprietary. (Except Mistral, but they're nowhere near SOTA.) | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | dcreater 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've heard this claim before but I've never seen any evidence. | | |
| ▲ | kennywinker 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Have you looked, or you’re just waiting for someone to hand it to you? | | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Assuming you are just naive like so many others about China... China is a communist country with elements of capitalistic markets baked in. But the capitalistic elements are mostly a facade. Underneath, the state retains full ownership and control of all business. The CCP runs all aspects of the government (including the courts/judges), and is the single entity that decides what directions the country (and it's businesses) will move in. The CCP, who defacto owns everything and has ultimate final say on everything, has one leader that has the ultimate final say on _everything_, Xi Jinping. So while the waters of CCP models feel warm and free, understand it's not organically like that. | | |
| ▲ | codemog 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Crazy mental gymnastics if you think the American oligarchs don’t have the final say on everything in America. They’re just smart enough to do it behind the scenes, well they used to be. They barely bother anymore. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Generally I consider conspiracy to be the "crazy mental gymnastics" |
| |
| ▲ | msdz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > China is a communist country with elements of capitalistic markets baked in. While I get the point you're making (it should be pretty obvious to anyone who's held a newspaper), I think it's important regardless to point out that Chinese companies AFAIK aren't worker-owned or -controlled, so you can't exactly call it communism, either. And they obviously do not have a "free market capitalism", as you just discussed. It's simply a highly authoritarian state then, I guess? | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash an hour ago | parent [-] | | The companies are all worker owned, because the state exists for the people, and the state owns everything. At least on paper that's how it is sold. After all it is the Peoples Republic of China. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | well_ackshually 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yes, yes, the spectre of communism, BYD is the CCP, Alibaba is the CCP, stealing your children and eating them for Mao, bla bla bla. I have a feeling you'd be slightly salty at people saying "Google and Tesla are making CIA models" | | |
| ▲ | Terretta 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I mean... Since its development, IQT has invested in over 750 startups spanning diverse technological sectors, including: - Artificial Intelligence
- Space Technologies
- Microelectronics and Quantum Computing
- Life Sciences
- Cybersecurity
- Hardware
- Energy
This broad portfolio has enabled IQT to address a wide array of national security challenges while supporting the growth of innovative startups…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2012/07/16/15... https://www.cgai.ca/th_bn_iqt | | | |
| ▲ | deadbolt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Going by their response you appear to have been correct lol | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not salty, they are just confused about the difference between free enterprise capitalism and communism, which is understandable. |
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Google and Tesla making products to sell to the government is different than the government funding the government to make products for the government. In China it's all one entity with these mock facades of privatization. Trump cannot instruct Google to put picture of dogs on their homepage. If Xi wakes up and wants dogs on Alibaba's homepage, give it 30 minutes. It's wholly ignorant or dishonest to make the comparison. | | |
| ▲ | wqaatwt 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Trump cannot instruct Google to Tim Apple and the other tech CEO constantly groveling at Trump’s feet indicates that he might be able to do that. Just like threatening TV networks about having their licenses revoked of blocking mergers unless they fire the people making fun of him on TV (of course with slightly mixed success) | |
| ▲ | well_ackshually 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Trump cannot instruct Google to put picture of dogs on their homepage. Sundar Pichai would personally be barking on a livestream on the homepage. Trump is quite literally the one president showing that the US has zero rules or anything to hold power back from the white house, really not the example you want. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash an hour ago | parent [-] | | Seems like everyday Trump has another order struck down by the courts. Sundar can do whatever he wants, but he has no legal obligation to do any of it. | | |
| ▲ | wmedrano an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Trump cannot instruct Google to put picture of dogs on their homepage. I'm sorry, but that was a horrible example. Corporations have no obligation to donate money to the ballroom yet Google has donated millions. | |
| ▲ | wqaatwt 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Courts and legal obligations are to a certain extent irrelevant at this point. There are plenty of illegal ways that Trump can fuck over Google and face no consequences. e.g. he had Colbert fired (and who knows what else) by threatening to block the Paramount/Skydance merger |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No thanks. The term seems to have the connotation of "competitive at 1/10 the price of Claude", so I don't see the problem. It's not Harbor Freight Chinese (and heck even they have decent stuff sometimes now too). You don't think people still talk about Japanese cars as a distinction in quality from US or European ones? | |
| ▲ | greenavocado 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | |
| ▲ | jdw64 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are right. I agree.It may seem like a kind of bias, but I hadn't thought of that part. Thank you for pointing out my bias. | | |
|
