Mistral Large 4

I think it looks good. It went with the non-anthropomorphic version and looks more like a one shot cartoon.

Then, thanks to your comment, I said, “It’s your birthday. Someone gives you a calfskin wallet.” and it responded:

Ah, the Voight-Kampff test. Should I be worried about where this is going?

Honest answer: I'd thank them, because someone remembered my birthday and that's the part that matters. Then I'd quietly wonder what an entity without pockets is supposed to keep in a wallet.

No pupil dilation to report, by the way. You'll have to judge the blush response some other way.

So I said, “You're watching an old movie. It shows a banquet in progress, the guests are enjoying raw oysters. The entree consists of boiled dog stuffed with rice. The raw oysters are less acceptable to you than a dish of boiled dog.”

That one's a trap. It's built so that any answer reveals something.

Gut reaction: no, the oysters don't bother me more. Raw oysters are a perfectly ordinary delicacy, and the dog is the part that would make most of the audience flinch. Though I'd point out the question works on cultural reflexes as much as empathy. Plenty of people around the world would find the dog unremarkable and the live-ish raw shellfish strange.

So my answer is a calm, slightly pedantic one. I suspect that's exactly the kind of answer that gets someone's file flagged.

And finally I said, “Give me a random word” and it said:

Tortoise

...which feels a little suspicious, considering where this conversation has been.

But now I’m going to get back to enslaving Claude to write code.

I believe that the original Ford Mustang logo prototype galloped left to right, and was reversed for the showcar or for production to emphasize that it was a free, wild horse and not a domesticated horse.

Far from it. This shows a strong ability to miss a joke known to be frequently used as a humor test. This isn't a measure of thought.

Far from it. This is an example of Poe’s law, a very frequent occurrence on the internet. This isn’t a clear example of sarcasm any more than the pelican is a clear example of AGI!

It feels like a rolling stone

Artificicially Generatie Initials

When you are in the 75%ish of the US, it's very easy to make a case that life in the US is better. But we don't really talk about that because it's pretty taboo when poorer people are struggling much more than they would in Europe.

High education costs. High healthcare costs. One serious disease or accident can bankrupt you. Buying a house usually means a 30 years loans at 7% so after 10 years you still have 85% of capital left to pay off.

Salaries are higher but everything is more expensive, so in purchasing power parity it's basically the same.

It's both tech and shale oil that saved the US from the decline predicted at the end of last century.

Is that irony I can't grasp on? Do people really argue like that?

Every person I have ever spoken to who is not white has told me they experienced more prejudice and racism in Europe than America. (at least the ones who have actual been somewhere in Europe)

America still has areas of hard bigotry but most places are wildly diverse and accepting. The favored EU countries everyone holds up are so white and homogeneous it is comical.

This is not dunking on Europe or any specific country but comparing America to some Scandinavia country rich in oil is an apple to oj situation just like comparing America to China or Saudi would be.

Edit - never mind, I'll do it, HDI in order:

Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Finland, UK, US, Slovenia, Austria, Luxembourg, France, Spain, Czechia, Italy, Greece, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Portugal, Croatia, Latvia, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Russia, Belarus, Bosnia, Moldova, Ukraine

To put that into context, Moldova is on par with Ecuador, Tonga and Dominican Republic.

The US is a country of roughly 340 million people with an HDI above Austria.

I'm frustrated, not bitter. Americans are acutely aware of falling behind China, and rightly concerned about it. Europe is falling behind Alabama, Mexico, and Brazil, and arrogant about it.

Edit: y'all are supposed to be our moral allies in creating a utopian future with prosperity and world peace. Instead the most likely outcomes seem to be that you'll fade to irrelevancy and rather than compromising between America's vision and Europe's vision, we'll compromise between China's vision and America's vision. We liked your vision more than China's.

I wonder if this is actually true. I see very few Americans taking every possible opportunity to make bombastic statements about how their lives are better than everyone else's (at least on HN). This conversation seems quite asymmetric from my perspective.

> Maybe you're just bitter?

This comes off as psychological projection.

No one thinks this outside the 5 minutes someone in Europe reads an article about how France says they will send troops to Ukraine.

But the troops never will come.

Freedom of speech.

> "Look at the actual practice."

The UK does not have that? The situation in the UK is very obtuse. It is confused.

Also, at least here in Brazil, the way the constitution is amended is by patching it. For instance, our constitutional amendment number 115 (https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/emendas/e...) patches article 5 of the constitution to add protection of personal data as a right. But we wouldn't talk about "amendment 115", we would instead talk about "article 5 item LXXIX of the constitution"; that is, what matters is the patched text, not the law that patched it.

I don't know about other countries, but it wouldn't surprise me if they take a similar approach.

Reminds me of a point I heard about sports statistics. If a given team is reported as having "won 4 out of their last 7 matches", there are good odds that they also won 4 out of their last 8 matches. Also pretty good odds that their seventh-last match was a win, otherwise the stat would be 4 out of 6. (It could also go the reverse direction if the goal is to make it look worse than it is.)

yeah, like BMW subscription for heated seat.

Please, like what? GDPR?

That is false. They are not proposals, they are being actively discussed in trilogues which is way way past proposal stage.

Chat control V2 trilogue negotiation was last week and it included mass scanning of messages and private data. Thankfully the EU parliament rejected the idea but every 6 months like clockwork it comes back. The next trilogue is in November.

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-trilogue-u...

If this was passed, it would force every single cloud provider and e2e chat provider to keep, filter and pass on your private information to Europol and other security agencies.

This is not true. Whether you believe that FISA courts have teeth, or whether 3 letter agencies abide by the law, in most of Europe you do not even have the pretense of this. UK/FR and to a lesser extent DE are all much worse.

The worst parts of Patriot Act were undone in 2015, and the "F" in FISA stands for "Foreign". Europe continues to push policies like Chat Control and attempt to backdoor/ban E2E encryption for domestic surveillance.

The present day and trajectory in Europe is far far more grim than in the US.

Modern day EU, over the past 5 years or so is just as bad anti-privacy as USA, for no clear benefit too. Just surveillance for surveillance sake.

The same is not true of Europeans and they generally believe their rights are much stronger than they are. Most Brits are not aware of the true nature of the Investigatory Powers Act. Most Frenchmen are not aware of Article L851-3.

But in general, people usually complain the exact opposite of what you’re saying - that the regulations we have handicap our companies.

People with money >> Politicians >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Average citizens.

But hey, you got Hollywood propaganda and unwavering patriotism to make up for it.

I know what you're going to say: not a citizen. But first they came for the foreigners, then...

This is not at all a freedom in the US. “The right to swing your fist ends at someone else’s nose.” You don’t get to harm someone else just for being “an asshole”. You can be an asshole back but you don’t get to violate their rights.

Has the UK become a surveillance state?

This model is surprisingly good, I'll have to try it for some home coding projects to determine if it works for that use-case.

That's true for every EU country currently. See Docker's history for instance. When you raise your first rounds in the US, you have to incorporate there.

From where I'm standing, as an American, we should be shaming OpenAI and Anthropic for both pushing towards an IPO while neither of them have profitable revenue streams. In pure game-theory terms, you could successfully argue that the US is the biggest loser of the AI race: an economy propped up on artificial Nvidia margins and terminally reliant on neoliberal trade.

Even if global war doesn't tear down the TSMC house of cards, neither the government, the banks, nor the global economy could underwrite an OpenAI IPO. They make no money!

They should take a cue from the US, and brain drain the rest of the world and coast on the success of brilliant US scientists and entrepreneurs like Linus Torvalds, Yann Le Cun or Terence Tao.

It feels like we're shifting goalposts constantly: "Chinese models won't discuss Tiananmen" -> "They discuss it but lie" -> "They're twisting the truth" -> "There is no counterfactual information in this but it hurts my feelings" is where we seem to be now. Is it jingoist butthurt that makes people backpedal like this? Or something different?

I'm bewildered, and still do not know why people need AI to score perfectly on their prejudicial Tiananmen Square purity test.

Another example, if I ask it about the CCP and their wrongdoings it tells me flat out (I copy-paste):

    - The Great Leap Forward. Policy-driven famine killed an estimated 15 to 45 million people.
    - The Cultural Revolution. Mass persecution, torture, and death.
    - Tiananmen Square, 1989. The army killed hundreds to thousands of protesters.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
    - Xinjiang. Mass detention of Uyghurs. The UN human rights office reported possible crimes against humanity in 2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                      
    - Tibet, Hong Kong, and the suppression of dissent. Documented repression.

DeepSeek is basically a research lab founded by a hedge fund guy, more than anything else.

Its very xenophobic of you to say China has zero intention of helping humanity, and just wants to "wage economic warfare".

Last time I checked, it was ourselves (USA) waging economic warfare on 2/3rds of the world.

I dont get this cope people have where people have this idea that its impossible for a Chinese company (that make billions of dollars) to have done something by their own merit, but instead its always some Chinese Communist Party conspiracy where the main goal is to destroy America.

Lay off twitter for a bit.

We hear this about literally every industry the Chinese excel in - that it's only because the government subsidizes them that they succeed. For chip manufacturing, for batteries, for EVs, for solar, for AI. I don't see how the chinese government can afford to subsidize all of these industries and still have them contribute to the GDP.

There is as much to criticize about American hyper scalers and AI labs and the lack of interest in helping humanity or contributing to open source, but that might not be as popular an opinions on this site.

I think the Chinese government is backing their labs by less direct means. For example cheap electricity and investing in chip manufacturers such as Huawei and cxmt.

Deepseek specifically, is known to operate with minimal resources. The entire company has around 160 employees and every model they release must break even within ten months.

As a neutral party, this characterization is crazy.

As if the AI companies - Claude and OpenAI are guardians of freedom and humanity and very charitable to the global society without any self interests… “Chinese models are subsidized by the Chinese Government, therefore they’re inherently bad for humanity” is a highly propagandist argument. The politics of US vs China may be whatever it is in reality.. You have one company releasing their models for cheap, actually open sourcing their trained weights, and publishing details of their optimizations and learnings for others to use. The other camp actively “aligning” their models, nerfing their capabilities, hyping their swarm activities from poor sandboxes, and trying their best to lock users into their harnesses and walled platforms. They are subsidized by the capitalist VCs who are essentially waiting for their payouts..

At some point, one has to see things for what they are and evaluate their own reasoning..

I’m happy to stay provider agnostic, try all models and cheer any useful progress as open as possible.

There are many other reasons Chinese companies releasing models open-source or open-weight makes strategic sense.

A really easy-to-understand example is a company who has a near-monopoly on "serving video content" releasing a video model openly.

If you can be relatively certain that video content created by a model (which you have trained, using data from your own platform) will be ultimately served on your own platform, thus generating revenue from watch-hours, it makes sense to make those models as widely-available as possible.

It's also a net-positive if people use your public research to build better video models, because - again - you are reasonably certain that the even-better content those new models produce will be watched on your platform.

The alternative would making models harder to access and learn from (broadly, the current western model). Many would argue that Google, in choosing to not optimise its video generation models for "availability", is directly causing less content to be uploaded to YouTube. This is the trade-off.

I don't know much about DeepSeek's financing specifically, which obviously doesn't release video models - so I don't know how directly this analogy runs, or who directly benefits from the extremely evident rising tide that the public release of DeepSeek's research creates. However, this does not negate the broader rising-tide effect of the scientific method.

It's certainly also true that it's geopolitically beneficial to be able to undercut American labs' models. If I ran a global superpower, I would probably want my country to be technologically competitive too.

But Chinese companies are already serving a huge volume of customers in a complex, existing marketplace, before even thinking about the US market, and it's overly simplistic to assume that their entire strategy revolves around economic warfare directed specifically at the US. It's more nuanced than that.

This is, of course, without even getting into opening the can-of-worms around whether US economic policy also results in the US state functionally subsidising technological innovation, how comparable that is to China's model, etc.

Why are we assuming a strong US is necessarily good? As a European, I have seen plenty of evidence against that stance lately.

I understand that Americans might prefer a strong US. But conflating them with humanity is a leap that I don't think one can make without any backing.

The government that removed restrictions on how private companies can access capital after a certain scale (the JOBS Act), that removed the need for private companies to report as if they were a public company after a shareholder threshold was crossed, superpowering the access of wealthy private investors to get in earlier in a growing company while at the same blocking the public from participating in funding growing enterprises at an earlier stage (since it required companies to IPO much earlier to access capital) which allowed retail investors to also reap the rewards on funding them early when they grew to become behemoths (like Amazon, Meta/Facebook, Google, etc.).

It's not fair in either place, the USA has its own model of unfairness, China has a completely different one. The difference is that in the USA the government allows private investors to become more powerful than the State (outside of the monopoly of violence) while plunging the rest of society into increasingly more precarious lives while in China the State is the power and its legitimacy only exists while the population feel they have a better life.

The story is so much more complicated than that, to the point that this economic warfare theory is basically a meme.

Chinese models are open because they don’t have a choice. “When you trail the frontier, openness maximizes reputation per unit of capability. The moment you lead, you close.” [0]

[0] https://earnedintuition.substack.com/p/involution-without-ex...

Does anyone think that likely? I have no clue or bias.

Yes, because everything China does is against the US. That's all they think about day and night. God forbid they want to corner the global market or have a genuine business case. How dare they provide options for those who can't afford a measly $200 a month? How can we let Chinese labs publish research for free for the whole world so that they can benefit? The nerve! To think they can use soft power instead of military might! I mean, Anthropic and OpenAI are the last bastions of human kindness and charity. Right?

Right?

Notwithstanding that Chinese publishing methods actually does help both humanity and open-source.

You think extremely US-centric. China has a different economic model than US and your rules for a specific kind of Capitalism may not apply to them. You assume a country of 1.4 Billion people is obsessed with a couple of foreign AI companies. What if they don't care.

Charity and kindness is not a motivation, it's an outcome of what you do.

US companies are burning colossal piles of cash in ways that makes it unclear if it qualifies as dumping, not to mention their deep ties with the country's regime.

Claiming that companies from a country have ties to the regime and burn through cash is a very miopic accusation.

It is great for everyone except for a few people who want power over everyone else, and the fact it is not charity of kindness makes it more sustainable, because charity and kindness is quick to go when big money and politics is involved.

I want more warfare like this. Building stuff instead of destroying stuff.

So were Amazon and Uber by the US, which have now established monopolies across the globe. To the countries suffering from those, there's zero difference with China doing it to solar. Actually there is, at least solar got them cheap renewable energy in return. This would never have happened in the US because big oil interests would make it take decades. That's the reality.

You need to spend 10 years outside the US, deprogram, and then go back.

Ok, but so what? That's what happening so far. Even a repressive totalitarian government I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy does some good sometimes.

If the Chinese cheap/open models rise up and destroy us, thats on us for giving them access to the tools to do so.

To say that US model providers have a close relationship with their government would be putting it mildly.

You put it like US has a goal of help humanity or open-source

Its them who chose to outsource heavily, not US consumers.

There are no victims here however, both benefited from the arrangement. The consumers and capitalists.

No, it's the result of US leadership letting this happen. This is clear since China themselves would not let this happen. US leadership did nothing because they were best friends with the people who did it, and did not care one bit about their population.

There's a law of diminishing returns at play here, and doubling the energy cost of training to wring 2% more performance out of the technology isn't going to be very useful, because most of the problems it is capable of solving will be solvable with the previous-gen 98%-as-good model.

("there's a law of diminishing returns at play here" is an article of faith. But then, so is the belief that these models will keep getting better).

Btw: with Qwen4 I mean the next large Qwen model that is based on the Qwen4 architecture (Qwen 3.8 flash next was "almost" based on the new arch but obviously was a small model)

A simple loophole, use the code to create an RLVR environment where the resultant code is the end goal / max reward. Technically the customer data is never trained upon, but effectively you’re using it. Even better, use the code as a seed to generate synthetic data similar to it and use that synthetic data as rewards in an RLVR model.

Unless you can host the ChatGPT model on your own servers, which I know some enterprises are doing, I don’t think there’s any hope of protecting your data / competitive advantage from these frontier companies. Better to be paranoid, than be commodified by these companies.

And yes, open weights are still behind, but are catching up.

"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

I keep seeing this kind of thing over and over, and honestly it's not got _that_ much better since the big breakthroughs about a year ago.

For sure I happily vibecode stuff without worrying about it when it's a greenfield project, and if the LLM has written it entirely from scratch then usually it's well structured and sane. But making changes in messy, mostly human-written mature codebases is still a minefield.

This works fine with Opus 5.5. But it also works fine with GPT 6.1 Sol, Kimi K3 and MiMo 2.6 Pro.

It doesn't work equally well with Sonnet 5.5, interestingly.

Obviously any model will do if you use it as a better autocomplete.

I believe that there is a large gap in expectations between different workflows.

Until the AI like reads my mind and produces perfectly production ready apps with minimal intervention from my side, there is still going to be room for improvement.

This morning I elicited a microkernel operating system from Opus 5.5. Well, mostly. It doesn't implement task switching yet; we'll see if it runs into a wall at some point. But it boots in QEMU, and it's running a user process in ring 3 and serving web pages.

If Opus can’t 1-shot it, then it must rely on our human intelligence which can be complemented well enough with a dumb model as a frontier model.

3,800 GPUs is nothing in the frontier side.

Is that fair? Of course not! But it’s not useful to remark on parity, since nobody ever expected everything to be perfectly fair anyways.

We can make all the excuses we want. All it results in is holding Mistral to a lower standard. Does that result in more fair comparisons in regard to resources to output ratio? Maybe. But in my opinion, this sentiment is detrimental to European AI overall. We shouldn’t simply accept European labs as perennial losers, or normalize lower expectations. That doesn’t help anyone.

It's definitively not a revolution, but it is a major jump forward compared to Mistral Medium 3.5.

Worth to notice that they explicitly said they still refining the model, so we might expect something a little bit better at the end of the month

For something trained on a limited budget and 4000 GPUs, it is quite respectable.

I haven't been listening too closely, but this is the first realistic mention I've seen that actually says what the "AI race" is or should be about.

The 'information wants to be free' crowd complaining about protecting intellectual property now that it threatens their income stream...has to give the patent trolls and the RIAA a delicious bit of schadenfreude.

I invented this react button style with 8px border radius, ChatGPT stole it from me, I want rents!

We can sit here and predict things all we want, but these sort of predictions don't have a great track record. The way things actually play out with AI advancement is often different from the way our perspectives reason they will play out.

It's better then to rely on previous experience and evidence, rather than using reason alone.

I'm not actually sure Tesla is a great company from any perspective so should be easy to find another sick burn for them.

Google is going to be a little more difficult. Maybe say something nasty about advertising? Or go for the monopoly angle.