| ▲ | piker 20 hours ago |
| It's a mistake to make this such an obvious copy. It will feed the narrative that Chinese entities cannot be trusted by the West. They could have varied it even slightly. It's one thing with hardware because customers don't need to trust suppliers any further than they can throw the box. But these labs seem to be battling for enterprise knowledge work-share. Trust is paramount, and they're already behind on that front. Own goal. |
|
| ▲ | prmoustache 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Copying is not frowned upon in the LLM ecosystem. This is its very reason of existence. |
| |
| ▲ | bko 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How to make an apple pie from scratch with no copying: Step 1: invent the universe | | |
| ▲ | abdullahkhalids 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Funnily enough, you will have to pretty accurately copy the laws of our universe to make an Apple pie. Even small changes will change the properties of atoms, and hence all of chemistry and biology. And there won't be any apples or wheat. | |
| ▲ | piker 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The baker is not asking you to trust them with your entire knowledge base in exchange for an apple pie. | | |
| |
| ▲ | piker 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Perhaps, but "we run the exact same business as Anthropic and OpenAI to the pixel at 0.1% the price" is going to raise eyebrows. | | |
| ▲ | dymk 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Eyebrows will raise at Anthropic / OpenAI, perhaps. Why are they charging 1000x more for the exact same business? The 'distillation is theft!' shtick won't last long. In fact, unlike Anthropic/OpenAI, these Chinese labs actually had to pay for that 'stolen' training data. | | |
| ▲ | piker 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Why are they charging 1000x more for the exact same business? The implication they want to avoid, I'm suggesting, is because the CCP isn't plugged into and funding those entities' activities at a loss. Or they're lying about ZDR, etc. etc. |
| |
| ▲ | oh_no 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | GLM 5.2 and Kimi 3 both had huge API pricing jumps (GLM most expensive chinese model, by a lot, then then Kimi 3 a lot higher than that). the cost advantage is rapidly decaying. the oft-cited cost per task makes Kimi look good vs Anthropic but even, or slightly vs OpenAI | |
| ▲ | Daishiman 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Once the OpenAI/Anthropic-driven hype dies down people with decision-making power will be taking a look at the numbers and look at real productivity metrics. And they'll see it makes little sense to pay so much when competition is around and similarly good. | | |
| ▲ | fttt 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is already happening. Firms aren’t going to wait - their valuations are driven by it. So too is the compensation of those running them. |
| |
| ▲ | fortylove 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why? | | |
| ▲ | piker 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | For fear that the data they're entrusted with will be copied or that there is some nefarious reason like state sponsorship that makes the activity economical? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | kalcode 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Meh, we should just ignore that kind of propaganda. We copy things too, we use a system to protect IP because copying is such a normal and strong human thing to do. In fact, when we don't discuss China, most find modern software patents and copyright to be abusive. Finally, copying UX standards has been done for ages, it gives users a comfortable way to start using a product and instead of fighting that to be unique, some rather embrace it. It can be jarring using so many different apps if each one tries too hard to be unique. And this is my two cents, here it makes sense to have a similar interface, it's ultimately an app with chat sessions. |
| |
| ▲ | piker 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | I do agree with the UX idea of familiarity, but copying the exact salutations, etc. just seems egregious. Why not let the model speak for itself and contribute to an open harness? |
|
|
| ▲ | catigula 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Narrative? Kind of like the sphere Earth narrative. |
| |
| ▲ | BowBun 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pedantic. > A narrative is a structured account of connected events, experiences, or ideas, commonly referred to as a story Regardless of intent, it is how you tell your story. | | |
| ▲ | piker 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think the comment was intended to be pedantic, but rather to reframe the message as scientific fact. | |
| ▲ | catigula 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you misunderstood. “Narrative” typically frames something as polemic or open to interpretation, which this is about equally so to the whole “spherical Earth” story. |
|
|
