4.6 was released at the beginning of February, so if the Chinese models only "tickle its tail," that means they're >5 months behind.

If the competitive risk is real, then are choosing between supplier risk (AI model access) and competitive risk.

When there isn't a zero-risk option, the question becomes which risk is smaller.

Any competitive business will accept this risk if it gives them any type of edge no matter the duration of that edge. This is no different that using an exotic raw material.

And thus, capitalism continues to roll on. Businesses are suppose to go out of business, its a feature.

Speed.

I am on track to commoditize my niche industry, and I hope I can do it before anyone else beats me to it. I'm working at panic speeds.

Sure but that's orthogonal.

Yes you use the right tool for the job.

But if the job requires the best intelligence you can get with an LLM, then you use that.

Taking as an assumption that the quality of your product is a function of the quality of the inference you are using: if you use an inferior model because "what if it gets export controlled again" and your competitors don't, then your competitors are likely to win.

If you don't need frontier models for you job then this is all moot, but the thread started with

> You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model

Which is silly. HN likes to roleplay bringing everythgin "business critical" in house because sometimes vendors mess up. Self host, don't use the cloud, run open models locally, built redundant supply chains in case of another covid, etc etc. Sometimes the risk is real, but most of the time the risk is rare and the cost of an interruption event is less than the cost of bringing everything in house or using lower quality vendors "just in case"

Read the guidelines, you can make your point without calling people "suckers".

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> "The reality is this is world-ending technology and absolutely nobody knows what to do or can even agree that the problem exists."

The reality is that the "people in power" believe it is "world-ending technology" and will therefore use it in world-ending ways. People are absolutely 100% the danger here, not the technology.

I used Fable 5 for maybe 10 hours in the window when it was available. It was much better than Opus 4.8. And I have found the Opus models to be excellent, but Fable 5 was cranking out incredible research on some data sources I wanted to plumb into my project.

I wouldn't personally pay API pricing for it for my personal projects, but I bet it's going to be absolutely slammed with usage for the next month+.

As everyone knows, Kool-Aid is also just mostly water.

I work in AI / infrastructure and I have never seen as much interest towards investing into sovereignty by actual deciders. Thankfully, at this point I can't see any flip-flopping / change of messaging stopping that train.

In CA/EU over the last ~15 years, one used to be perceived as a bit of a "weird systems person" by just proposing alternatives to the big hyperscalers.

So the Trump administration, hands-down, has been the greatest ally here.

In tandem, I was hoping Anthropic would be keeping "dangerously capable" models banned from "evil Chinese distillers" for as long as possible.

[flagged]

That is part of why downvotes exist. They also exist for personal attacks, off topic tangents, posts that don't make sense, trolling, advertisements, AI generated content, and other such things we don't want to see here.

But "downvote for disagreement" is a legitimate use. I personally tried to tell someone that it wasn't, and I got corrected by dang.