All owned by two entities. I would buy their claim if they just used Tor or i2p as a transport layer, which are not that easy to control like a relay server farm owned by a single entity.
Maybe time for a custom license that would require M$ to sign up for special T&Cs if they want to use this software?
Who cares if it's OSI-approved or not, a line saying "M$, Google, and the like need written permission for every use case" would help to make those leeches honest. Just learn from the JSLint example.
Valkey is better because all of the new development work happens on Valkey, not because of the license. If the actual developer changed the license, that would be a different situation.
> I’d encourage devs to use MiniMax, Kimi, etc for real world tasks that require intelligence.
I use MiniMax daily, mostly for coding tasks, using pi-coding-agent mostly.
> The down sides emerge pretty fast: much higher reasoning token use, slower outputs, and degradation that is palpable.
I don't care about token use, I pay per request in my cheap coding plan. I didn't notice slower outputs, it's even faster than Anthropic. Degradation is there for long sessions with long contexts, but that also happens with Anthropic models.
> Sadly, you do get what you pay for right now. However that doesn’t prevent you from saving tons through smart model routing, being smart about reasoning budgets, and using max output tokens wisely. And optimize your apps and prompts to reduce output tokens.
Exactly. For my use case, I get 1500 API requests every 5 hours for 10€ monthly. I never hit the limit, even during the intensive coding sessions.
What I notice is, while Opus and Sonnet feel better for synthetic benchmarks, it doesn't matter in the real world. I never put so much effort into coming up with a perfect problem spec like the ones in benchmarks. I don't craft my prompts for hours expecting the LLM to one-shot a working program for me. And that's exactly what all those benchmarks are doing. And that's where Anthropic tools shine in comparison to cheaper Chinese models.
When it comes to the real world, where I put my half-baked thoughts in broken English in a prompt and execute 20 prompts in half an hour, the difference between Opus, Sonnet, and MiniMax is minimal, if at all. There, I don't want to think about costs and token savings and switching between different Anthropic models. I just use MiniMax, and that's it.
Yes, MiniMax sometimes gets stuck. Then I switch to Opus to unblock it. But the same happens if I use Opus the whole session. It gets stuck eventually, and model switch is sometimes required to get a fresh perspective on the problem.
The only difference is, using Opus or Sonnet quickly eats up my budget, while with MiniMax I have basically unlimited usage (for my coding use case) for 10€ per month.
I've only been using free tokens for a year now. Gemini and they just dropped pro so I switched to minimax. Bit of a hurdle switching from Gemini-cli to kilo-cli, but now I can't really see too much difference.
If I was starting new projects I'd pay for a better model, but honestly I don't really know any different.
I've not ever used Claude and people seem to rave about it. Maybe its good, but I doubt its $200/month good.
When I hit issues with these lower models I think hard about creating the right tooling - agnostic to the harness and I feel like maybe its more work but I can carry those tools to any setup going forward. That's how it was in the early Linux days so why change what clearly works?
I’ve never had any problems with MiniMax. I wouldn’t call the speed fast exactly, but it’s faster than GLM and seems similar to Opus.
It’s been fast enough that I’ve been using it as my main model (M2.7 and before that, M2.5). Opus still does better at tasks, but MiniMax is so much cheaper. I’ve used their cheaper plan and I’ve never been rate limited.
The EU is becoming more and more fascist in every regard.
With every new proposal, every vote, they are closer to the totalitarian regime. Proposals can be declined a million times, but the EU regime is always finding sneakier and more manipulative ways to push again and again. And once it passes, it can become only worse in the next iterations.
I can already see a coordinated attack on any freedoms and rights from the governing regimes in member states and their endless propaganda.
At this point, the EU can't be fixed. It has to be abandoned completely, both as an idea and as an implementation. EU requirements were wrong, architecture was worse, and the implementation was the worst.
We should all just leave it and maybe try again in a few generations with entirely new premises.
> We should all just leave it and maybe try again in a few generations with entirely new premises.
Nice try troll. Given your views and username might it be a stretch to assume you align more with the eastern side of governance ?
> At this point, the EU can't be fixed. It has to be abandoned completely, both as an idea and as an implementation. EU requirements were wrong, architecture was worse, and the implementation was the worst.
> They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days.
And they will try again tomorrow. Until it passes.
> Also compared to whom?
Why compare? The fact that there are worse regimes than the EU doesn't make the EU even a single bit better. Lesser evil is still evil. Let us strive for good.
> With every new proposal, every vote, they are closer to the totalitarian regime. Proposals can be declined a million times, but the EU regime is always finding sneakier and more manipulative ways to push again and again.
... I mean this is how all parliamentary systems work. It's more _visible_ in the EU than in others, I think, because the council/commission are more willing to put forward things that they don't really think the parliament will go for (in many parliamentary systems, realistically the executive will be reluctant to put forward stuff where they think they'll lose the vote in parliament).
But there's not really a huge difference; it would just be _quieter_ in most parliamentary systems, and you wouldn't really hear anything about it until the executive had their votes in place, brought it forward, and passed it. I actually kind of prefer the EU system, in that it tends to happen more out in the open, which allows for public comment. And public comment and pressure is a huge deal for this sort of thing; most parliamentarians, on things they don't understand, will vote whatever way their party is voting. But if it becomes clear that their constituents care about it, they may actually have to think about it, and that's half the battle.
So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take.
You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
There are advantages to "government by evolution", as opposed to "government by monoculture"
With the former approach, every country is allowed to try different things, some amazing, some dumb, and learn from the amazing and dumb things that others have done.
In the latter, there's only one governing body, and whatever that body said, goes. There's no science or statistics, just sides shouting their arguments at each other, calling people names.
Both the EU and the US used to heavily lean towards the former approach, but they're slowly but inexorably moving towards the latter.
> So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take.
There are many reasons to abolish the EU, but the topic here is chat control.
> You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
Would they? We don't know. Would the government of Denmark be ready to commit political suicide by insisting again and again on something so unpopular?
The whole premise of the EU is to allow various unelected interest groups to push unpopular regulation to the EU member states without any consequences.
We already don't have free speech. There's nothing protecting it (and many laws already to the contrary.) There aren't really any such constitutional protections from what I can tell.
Once laws are passed they aren't revoked. So it's just a matter of political climate. Just wait for people to get a little more negative, a little more paranoid (which has historically been "helped along" in various ways)-- a law only needs to pass once, and then we're stuck with some stupid bullshit forever.
It doesn't really seem like how you'd want to design it.
"fascism" has a pretty well defined meaning, which is not whatever the EU would become if something like chat control ever passes. Towards totalitarianism, sure, but again not all totalitarianism is fascism. I wish people would stop using le mot du jour as a replacement for everything in an subconscious need to increase others' engagement.
What a joke. Compared to US, implementing chat control is like a pin prick compared to the scale of MAGA fascism. The EU is probably the best example of functional government anywhere in the world right now.
The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances, and its only democratic if you squint and look at it the right way. People need to directly elect the MPs, directly elect some kind of president. They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
I agree there is a strong democratic deficit in the current EU governance structure, but I disagree with a proposal such as
> directly elect some kind of president
We do not need a president with over-powers, and electing directly one does not solve anything for democracy, as the recent history in countries like the US and France shows. The point of directly electing a president is giving that role more power. The current structure in the EU is not so much president-centric either executive or legislative wise, but more like comission-centric, which is what imo has the biggest problem in terms of democracy in the EU.
Yes please. Not make an all powerful president whose election is more about the person than about their politics.
The current US is a perfect example why this is such a bad idea.
I support a president that's more of a figurehead though like in Ireland. More like an elected head of state for ribbon cutting but not really a strong political force. More like a negotiator than a dictator.
I guess the US' dogma of the winner takes all makes this palatable for them. But I don't see it leading anywhere but destruction especially in a forever-polarised zero-sum two party system.
I get the impression you're coming at it from a US perspective, and it's not that, and doesn't intend to be for now. The president is elected by majority of the MP's who have been elected by the people of their respective countries. Almost like the US electorial system, except it's done internally because people generally only vote for their own best interests and not that of the entirety.
Perfect, no, it can be slow and a lot of red tape, but what system isn't flawed.
The commission is checked by the parliament is checked by the council is checked by the commission. Most other national organizations only have one check - Germany, for example, only has the Bundesrat as a check of the Bundestag.
Checks and balances means some folks should NOT be directly elected. if everyone is <directly elected>, then you have <directly elected> checked and balanced by <directly elected>. Which is to say, not at all. :-P
You could have a system where everyone is directly elected while keeping checks and balances, if voting were restricted, eg. maybe everyone can vote for a president/prime minister, but only non-teachers can vote for an education minister, and only non-finance people can vote for something like the Fed chief, etc. The point being the checks and balances now happen because other groups keep your group in check by voting.
Absolutely! That does keep some of the checks. You can do better than that though!
It's like on the Apollo missions where some parts were made by two completely different manufacturers and worked completely differently.
Hybrid political systems are best. Of course if we like democracy (and most people do), then that should be the most common kind of component. But I'd still like to have some different paradigms mixed into the system. And that's exactly what most modern constitutions do, for better or for worse.
I'd personally go for a two-chamber system (like congress/senate or commons/lords), with one chamber being elected and the other being chosen by sortition.
Maybe also a 3rd chamber, where the weight of your vote was proportional to IQ (much more palatable in EU than US).
one if the problems is that most elections are only for one person, so only the majority (the person with the most votes) wins.
give everyone half a dozen votes or more, and and you'll get a more representative sample.
for example instead of electing a president, elect a while leadership team. independent of party affiliation. (i'd get rid of parties completely while we are at it, every candidate should be independent (the expanded version of that gets even rid of candidates, every adult can potentially be elected, but that is a more complex system that needs more elaboration))
We do? What did you think the European Parliament elections every four years were for?
> directly elect some kind of president.
Why? Nowhere in Western Europe except very arguably France (France, as always, has to be a bit weird about everything, and has a hybrid system) has a directly elected executive. True executive presidential systems are only really a thing in the Americas and Africa (plus Russia, these days).
Like, in terms of big countries with a true executive presidency, you’re basically looking at the US, Russia and Brazil. I’m, er, not sure we should be modeling ourselves on those paragons of democracy.
> They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
The parliament has the same accountability and checks and balances as any national parliament, more or less (more than some, as the ECJ is more effective and independent than many national supreme courts).
i always found it odd that the most powerful person in many european countries, the prime minister, is not directly elected. but the problem is not really there. the problem in my opinion is the concentration of power in one person. and the influence of political parties to decide who gets to be a candidate.
imagine system where we directly elect the whole cabinet. only people with electoral approval should get to be ministers. and the prime ministers or presidents job is to only manage that group.
> the problem in my opinion is the concentration of power in one person.
Generally, a prime minister is less powerful than an executive president, often much less powerful.
> and the prime ministers or presidents job is to only manage that group.
On the face of it, that is the PM's primary role in a parliamentary democracy. Now, the complication is that, in many parliamentary systems, the PM has significant power over the ministers (either via the ability to directly appoint them, or via being the head of the ruling party/coalition/or various other means). But generally, the PM is less powerful in nearly all systems than, say, the US president; in particular the finance minister is often a separate semi-independent power within the cabinet.
> Non-elected representatives from my country keep pushing for chat control via the council. How do I, as a citizen, hold them accountable?
How is that an EU problem? Without the EU, like here in the UK, we had non-elected lobbyists pressuring our elected government to implement age checks, message scanning, etc. And it is still continuing.
You're fighting the wrong fight by blaming the EU for this.
This is a highly solvable problem, one that is solved by not overloading the national elections with to different concerns.
EU has checks and balances that were intended for a trade union, not a nascent superstate. If we don't implement proper checks and balances in a real fucking hurry, we'll wake up one morning and realize the EU has turned into another Soviet union, and by then it'll be far too late to do anything about it.
How badly would you say the council or commission have to mess things up before they saw any voter-initiated repercussions what so ever with a system of accountability that requires voters to consider punishing the council or comission more important than their own national elections?
If accountability is to work, it has to be more than an abstract theoretical possibility.
It isn't abstract. Your government sends representatives to represent its platform and priorities. If you don't agree with the reps you need to elect a different government.
It's a abstract because you will never ever see a situation where voters neglect national elections to adjust the EU council or commission. Maybe it's what needs to happen, but the way thing are arranged it just won't.
It isn't popular, but they have a name and address right? Not talking violence, but the number one way of dealing with these sorts is to usually talk things out. If you're really concerned about, get a group of similarly minded people and make it unambiguously evident that this person is championing something a lot of people are not behind. It becomes much harder to ignore or wave off something when people start making themselves known on your doorstep.
And no, this isn't dog whistling violence. It is simply applying signal. The only other message I can think of is engaging an investigative journalist/PI and starting to figure out who is lobbying the person, and start pressuring them.
That's a system of accountability in name but not in practice.
Even if there was an option in the national elections that didn't want this stuff, convincing a majority of voters to disregard national politics for an election cycle to have an imperceptibly small impact on the council members is such an unlikely outcome the council or comission would de facto be committing genocides before voters would be mobilized, and even then it's unlikely they'd face any repercussions.
That's the parliament. What about the council and the commission? Am I not allowed to hold them accountable? Does my power as a citizen only extend to a fourth of the balance of power?
They keep getting away with these attrition tactics with regards to implementing near Stasi levels communication surveillance. What about the day they're pushing to give the council unlimited powers, or to abolish voting rights, or to purge jews?
The council is made up of heads of state, so no more undemocratic than your own countries executive, and the commission is selected by the Council and approved by the EU parliament.
Russia and China has elections too, they are a necessary but not sufficient criteria for democracy. Just because there are elections doesn't mean the people can actually hold the government accountable.
The Council and Commission are representatives of your democratically elected national government. You as a citizen of your country get to pick said government.
If the EU were to not exist, your representatives in the Council/Commission (e.g. your national government) would be more powerful because they wouldn't be checked by the Parliament, not less.
Your problem is with your government, they just successfully deflected it to the EU in your mind.
> Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen and this is Kimi. IDE is based on VSCode. The entire company is build on packaging open source and reselling it.
The question is, where's the outrage? Why are there no headlines "USA steals Chinese tech?" "All USA can do is make a cheap copy of Chinese SOTA models".
> So funny to see Twitter go wild saying "a 50 person team just beat Anthropic" blah blah.
Well, if it's an American company, then it's a noble underdog story. When Chinese do it, they are thieves leeching on the US tech investment.
Do you think Chinese LLMs acquired training data legitimately? I think the whole situation is a bit funny, but I don't think the US "started it" to be fair.
> I think they probably acquire it in accordance with Chinese law.
You can easily look up[1] how China struggles with effective enforcement of IP laws.
And specifically for LLMs, Anthropic recently claimed that Chinese models trained on it without permission.[2]
> Who are you quoting with those marks?
Double quote marks have other uses besides direct quotes, such as signaling unusual usage.[3] In this case, talking about countries like they're squabbling kids.
> Started what?
Fishy use of others' IP, packaging others' work without attribution.
> To be fair to whom?
To US companies using Chinese LLMs without attribution.
They said Chinese law, which is not the same as American law, and presumably using IP the way they have is legal there, if indeed they actually did, as allegations of IP theft are just that, allegations, and even if they weren't, all nations in the history of mankind have been "stealing" "intellectual property" since forever, including the US from Britain, literally with the good graces of the fledgling US government [0].
As to what Anthropic said, it's quite specious as this analysis shows [1], ie the amount of "exchanges" is only tantamount to a single day or two of promoting, not nearly enough to actually get good RL training data from. Regardless, it's not as if other American LLM companies obtained training data legitimately, whatever that means in today's world.
The linked wikipedia article specifically talks about China struggling to enforce Chinese law. Here's a quote:
> Despite making efforts in intellectual property protection in China, a major obstacle in prosecution is corruption in courts; local protectionism and political influence prohibits effective enforcement of intellectual property laws. To help overcome local corruption, China established specialized IP courts and sharply increased financial penalties.
> all nations in the history of mankind have been "stealing" "intellectual property" since forever
You can't use 100-400 years ago as the counterexample to what happens today. It's like justifying Russian invasion of Ukraine with colonists invading Native American territories. We're in a different world order, things that were normalized that far back shouldn't be normalized today.
> The linked wikipedia article specifically talks about China struggling to enforce Chinese law. Here's a quote:
>
> Despite making efforts in intellectual property protection in China, a major obstacle in prosecution is corruption in courts; local protectionism and political influence prohibits effective enforcement of intellectual property laws. To help overcome local corruption, China established specialized IP courts and sharply increased financial penalties.
Why is it China increasing cases is evidence of struggling to you? Do you think the US is also struggling? What exactly are you talking about?
> You can't use 100-400 years ago as the counterexample to what happens today.
The US joined the Berne convention in 1988. I do not think we are talking about 400 years ago, but we're talking about the majority of the US history, having law that it was okay to ignore copyrights of the rest of the world.
> It's like justifying Russian invasion of Ukraine with colonists invading Native American territories
I don't agree: One can also mean that there is no justification for the invasion of the Ukraine just like there was no justification for invading American territories.
> Why is it China increasing cases is evidence of struggling to you? Do you think the US is also struggling? What exactly are you talking about?
I didn't say anything about increasing cases. "a major obstacle in prosecution is corruption in courts; local protectionism and political influence prohibits effective enforcement of intellectual property laws"
> we're talking about the majority of the US history, having law that it was okay to ignore copyrights of the rest of the world.
For the majority of world history slavery was the norm. _Majority_ of history doesn't matter. What matters is the order established in recent history.
> there was no justification for invading American territories
Colonization was normalized and institutionalized at that time way more than land invasion and annexation today. It's not even close.
They are struggling to enforce domestic IP law because it directly affects their own businesses, they don't care about international IP law.
Human nature is the same in any time period, there is no "normalization" at all, it's just how humans have always and will always continue to act, even today, with the world order currently breaking down.
Human nature may be the same, but it differs based on context. Humans act differently in a threatening high risk, low order world than they do in a more stable, lawful world. There is normalization, because in a pre-nuclear, pre-military alliance, pre-diplomacy, pre-world-police world you had to be much more ruthless and cunning as a state. The norms for people were completely different.
I see no evidence that they do act substantially differently post nukes given everything going on in the world in the news today. Regardless, this thread is going off topic, have a good day.
> You can easily look up[1] how China struggles with effective enforcement of IP laws.
I didn't see anything in there about Chinese companies violating Chinese law.
Can you so easily look up how American companies struggle with effective enforcement of Chinese IP laws? I think it should be pretty easy to see how American companies struggle with effective enforcement of European IP laws, and I can tell you it is similar.
From here, it is not so clear that the US can even enforce its own laws at the moment.
> signaling unusual usage
Thank you!
> In this case, talking about countries like they're squabbling kids.
> > Started what?
> Fishy use of others' IP, packaging others' work without attribution.
I see. I guess if China is 3000 years old then maybe obviously, because the US is such a young country by comparison.
So you think it is "fair"[1] to violate Chinese Law because there were people in China who violated US law first?
Maybe fair in a tit-for-tat sort of way, but not okay. That's why I called the whole situation funny. The rest of your post is answered in the sibling comment.
I mean, I (and a ton of others) were pretty outspoken about ollama being a pack of grifters. The thing they are good at is marketing though, so it drowns out other projects in the area.
yup. fully agree. American cry and bitch about Chinese copy and steal their tech then an American company (Cursor) use/steal open source tech from China and everyone is silence.
> Since we are apparently giving messaging platform reviews here, I feel exactly the same way about Microsoft Teams. It works great. It does everything I want. It doesn’t get in my way. 10 out of 10 keep up the great work guys!
It looks like we found a high executive using company money to buy a product no one wants to use.
It's easy to promote Teams if your secretary is handling it for you and you don't need to suffer yourself.
The other possibility: Microsoft started an astroturfing campaign on HN.
It's not even funny how a multibillion-dollar company with thousands of employees having unlimited access to the "world's best coding models" lags behind a small one-man [1] open source project that already had multiple plugins for the same feature [2] for months.
Pi already has 700+ third-party packages [2] for various purposes of various quality. But it doesn't matter, since creating a new working Pi extension to suit your needs is just a prompt away, and you don't even have to restart your coding session.
> Gemini does the same thing. For every question it looks to extend the conversation into natural follow-up questions, always ending a response with "Would you like to know more about {some important aspect of the answer}?"
If the aspect of the answer is important, wouldn't it be better just not to skip it?
> And...I don't see it as a bad thing. It's trying to encourage use of the tool by reducing the friction to continued conversations, making it an ordinary part of your life by proving that it provides value.
To me, it just adds friction. Why do I have to beg and ask multiple times to get an answer they already know I'm looking for but still decide to withhold? It's neither natural nor helpful. It's manipulative.
> It's similar to Netflix telling you other shows you might like because they want to continue providing value to justify the subscription.
It's not the same, because Netflix doesn't hide important movie sequences from you behind a question "If you like, I can show you this important scene that I just fast forwarded."
Groan. This is performative outrage and it's just boorish. The other person noted that ChatGPT uses bait-type continuations (Gemini and Claude do not), and sure that is a problem, but your reply is just noise. Beg? Christ.
There is utterly nothing wrong with AI engines offering continuation questions. But there's always something for people to whine about.
Humans do not want to ask a question and get a book in response. They just don't. No one, including you, wants such a response. And if you did get such a response I absolutely guarantee, given this performative outrage, that you'd be the first to complain about it.
"Why do I have to beg and ask multiple times to get an answer they already know I'm looking for but still decide to withhold?"
Performative with zero correlation with the actual topic at hand, but purposefully using ridiculously leading language to bait the gullible (which apparently includes you). It has nothing to do with a different opinion, it's someone choosing a polarised position and then just streaming nonsense to support it.
And I mean, then I looked at the rest of their comments on this site and it all made sense and was perfectly on brand. Facebook-tier rhetoric.
So maybe you should save white knighting for trolls?
EDIT: the troll is now opining that these are LLM-generated. Good god.
I'm pretty sure the last two llm_nerd's comments were AI generated.
What I am not sure about is if it was just laziness or a subtle prank showing how AI can be used to manipulate users to more interaction in a Facebook way.
Why do you think these are exclusive choices? You are gullibly white knighting for an obvious troll. Their other reply to you betrays that they're just a noisemaker, and you're dutifully carrying water for them.
Nah. Their reply was far more nuanced than your weird gaslighting of "you don't have your own opinions! You're being trolled by the person you agree with!"
I have no idea what your "opinion" is here. You ran in to defend someone, bizarrely, and you keep yipping about how you're being gaslit. Bizarre stuff.
Wait, maybe you've been an LLM all along!
Anyway, I think I'm done with you, so hope you have a good day. Go back and reply with the alt, after consulting the "slop machine". :)
All owned by two entities. I would buy their claim if they just used Tor or i2p as a transport layer, which are not that easy to control like a relay server farm owned by a single entity.
reply