| ▲ | sieve a day ago |
| I do not (generally) trust benchmarks. I only trust what a model does with MY code. Forget DS. I asked MiMo 2.6 yesterday to explain ML/LLMs to me succinctly and the pointed it at Karpathy's micrograd code. It produced a C implementation called `xor_mlp`, a tiny model that learnt how `xor` worked. I then asked it to produce a model that can play tictactoe without losing (mostly). It did. It supervised the training process and produced a compiled version with multiple switches. The pi-dev session is still running, so here are actual stats ↑45k ↓35k R1.0M CH99.4% $0.019 4.2%/1.0M (auto) - (opencode-go) mimo-v2.6-flash • high And here is Luna on the same workflow (I had to poke and prod a bit to get what I wanted): ↑141 ↓34k R1.0M W43k CH95.3% $0.072 4.2%/1.1M (auto) (opencode-go) gpt-5.6-luna • high I expect similar results from DS41F/MS13. Closer to MiMo costs than Luna. So the "significantly cheaper" thing may not really hold, more so when Luna has to actually read my codebase to do the stuff that I want rather than rely on world knowledge. The 8-10x cache read cost differential itself will kill the token budget. |
|
| ▲ | nearbuy 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| With GPT-6 Luna (which is what the parent comment was talking about), that would come to 3.2¢, assuming GPT-6 used the same number of tokens. I don't think you can guess more precisely than an order of magnitude from trying each once on one task. |
| |
| ▲ | sieve 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | DS is VERY talkative. Luna is less so. Still do not think, based on this little experiment, that Luna could beat DS in price: API-to-API. As part of a Plus/Pro plan? Sure. | | |
| ▲ | ducktoysleftout 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Its style of writing is part of the fun. Seeing reasoning traces fly by that each start with “Hmm…” is pretty amusing in my opinion especially if you try to vocalize it in your mind. | | |
| ▲ | Thanemate 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | In a discussion about cost effectiveness, how subjectively fun the writing feels like to the reader isn't a factor, except maybe if we were working on writing comedy. |
| |
| ▲ | yunohn 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, DS shows the thinking stream so it feels that way, but I’ve realized that OpenAI hiding it just gives a false impression - the non thinking output is also very wordy for OpenAI models. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | asaddhamani 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Don’t know if it’s still true but with Chinese models, using Western API providers is significantly more expensive and using Chinese providers they will train on your inputs without exception. That has kept me from using these ultra cheap endpoints. |
| |
| ▲ | asp_hornet 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > without exception Is this based on something or just because “they’re Chinese and they’ll do anything to win”. | | |
| ▲ | asaddhamani 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is based on my last check of alibaba and Deepseek TOS. If the Chinese will do anything to win, so will the Americans. I’m not American or Chinese and I have no reason to trust either side. I do think Chinese models are better price performance and actually open which is in many cases better. | |
| ▲ | r_lee 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | it's very well known Deepseek does it, their whole discounted pricing was seemingly priced on that. you can't even use Alibaba on Openrouter if you enforce ZDR | |
| ▲ | someguynamedq 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why on gods green earth would they not if they can? |
| |
| ▲ | sieve 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you really think Western providers will not train on your data? I have no such illusions. I try to keep PII out of what I share with LLMs. Otherwise, I do not see the point, really. Very little of my code is "unique." I simply approach things a bit differently. Otherwise the algorithms and code would be similar to what others with domain knowledge would write. So much of code and algorithm implementations are available in the open. And LLMs have trained on all of them. What they most probably gain from you is your prompts and your thinking approach more than the code. | | |
| ▲ | ascorbic 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The US labs would lose billions in enterprise contracts if they were found to be secretly training on data when opted-out. It's not worth it. | | |
| ▲ | dhx 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Great in theory, but what are US enterprises going to do _if_ their private data is later found to be used for training? 1. Not use AI technology and fall behind the rest of the world. 2. Use Chinese AI technology, either hosted by Chinese companies or the models self-hosted. 3. Sue US AI companies for damages, but not enough to have any meaningful impact to such companies that it'd impact US national security goals (per US government contribution to NY Times copyright lawsuit). | | |
| ▲ | vikramkr 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 3. They would sue. And it could have very meaningful impact. NYTimes copyright lawsuit is not a valid comparison because because that's a violation of national/state law which really only matters to the extent that the government is enforcing that stuff which is not the biggest concern rn (these companies are large enough that the threat of the legal costs of fighting in court is not that scary and you'd need a government actually willing to punish them substantially for them to be scared). This stuff would be under contract law against other mega corporations with big legal teams who are also their customers which is a much scarier prospect imo | |
| ▲ | Kyo91 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's a huge difference between AI companies exploiting a grey area like training on public corpora and violating a private contract that they explicitly entered into with another party. The latter is very explicitly illegal and would never survive trial in Delaware Chancery court. And all of that is before we get into Federal contracts where training on TS/SCI data could lead to criminal charges. There's a huge market in the US for providing AI services while respecting client privacy. It makes sense for at least one major provider to offer this. | |
| ▲ | heon29 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Great in theory, but what are US enterprises going to do _if_ their private data is later found to be used for training? This. And it’s already happening: > 2. Use Chinese AI technology, either hosted by Chinese companies or the models self-hosted. | |
| ▲ | tomnipotent 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Sue US AI companies for damages Yes that's the whole point, at least it's an option in the US and Europe. Good luck getting any redress from China. Anthropic was already hit with a $1.5B class-action which would be impossible against a Chinese business. |
| |
| ▲ | atmosx 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh. Yeah of course… and the US population will revolt if the figure the NSA is spying on them. |
| |
| ▲ | asaddhamani 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People use LLMs for far more personal tasks than just writing code. There are AI journaling apps for instance. And yeah, western providers give you a toggle but I don’t know if that toggle actually does anything or not. They were fine with collecting training data in many morally questionable ways before, no reason for them to stop when you’re literally handing it over to them. | |
| ▲ | intended 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The meager difference is that, in theory, you can eventually sue people in the US. In theory. Also, this is a feature for people who live in America, and mostly irrelevant for everyone in the global south. | | |
| ▲ | gf000 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | As a European, I honestly don't see a difference between the US and China from this perspective. They are both equally untrustworthy in my book. | | |
| ▲ | rrr_oh_man 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As a Western European, I see the same untrustworthiness in Europe. We just have our personal privacy security theater in the form of GDPR and a feeling of moral supremacy that's been drilled into our heads from primary school on. | | |
| ▲ | bigfudge 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | GDPR isn’t theatre in many organisations. Yes large tech firms (mostly US) probably ignore or circumvent. But most businesses I’ve worked for have taken concrete steps to reduce the data they hold and consider how it’s being used asa direct consequence of gdpr. |
| |
| ▲ | lejalv 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't understand why you are downvoted. |
|
|
|
|
