YHK - yet another hacker news clone

https://amphetamem.es/meme?id=the-simpsons_06_12_71&text=We%...

Will see if this remedies things.

Consumers are now saying the new pricing with lower usage caps is not so great. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49896975

It's not even anything controversial..

Edit: removed a comment that was uncharitable and rude, for which I apologize.

if true then LLM related AI (post-post AI winter AI?) is probably one of the fastest inception-to-plateau tech sectors to have ever existed.

We're still improving transistors on a somewhat routine basis.

I think it's more a token-cost-demand plateau. They've reached the scale and investor trillions to which they can't 10x the hardware cost of inference any more. They can't afford to compete by eating costs and there isn't appetite for more expensive inference.

So in order that they don't bankrupt each other they're looking for the legal cartel behavior coordinating a stop to growth by convincing governments to regulate them into stopping.

There's a lot of juice to squeeze in efficiency but only so much whereas it seemed like capability was going to continue to scale with parameter count.

Maybe it's good news for everyone that model capability is now going to scale on semiconductor cost meaning huge players are going to be very motivated to make semiconductors cheap.

I don't think that's the motivation, it's because both companies want to IPO and the _only_ way to even hope to be profitable is to do a whole lot less training, which costs a fortune. But unless Chinese labs go along with this gentleman's agreement (they won't), slowing down on training will bring about the inevitable Chinese model parity date more rapidly. At which point the game is well and truly over for OpenAI and Anthropic. Bit of a pickle they've gotten themselves into with the emphasis on being best, with premium prices to match.

People were talking about plateau for years already.

It just seems like these claims are constant and looking back the calls of 'plateau' between 2023 and 2025 were clearly false, why should we think it's different now?

Not once has any of these predictions come true, the pace of progress has continued on it's exponential trajectory since ChatGPT first came to the public's attention.

So why now? What is special about today that suggests all of this is coming to a screeching halt despite all evidence to the contrary?

And yeah I have worked with Anthropic and OpenAI models, they're good but they cost a fortune while Chinese models are already really good at a fraction of the cost.

Luckily it's not a mistake as now we have access to . . . dots.

(and sol 6.1, it seems)

It's because they need subscription money and interaction data and so keeping a version bump in the wings to stop the bleeding from your competitor's version bump is the logical thing to do. It has nothing to do with RSI.

See, that's an/the issue. As soon as people start to flee to the improved model, they start to serve degraded models to keep up with the demand.

How many DCs are devoted solely to gaming?

I'd be curious as to how much of internet infrastructure is dedicated to gaming though.

I've only dabbled but yes with SOTA models it is very good at animating and really most Blender tasks you can think of. Certainly if you are coming at Blender at below expert level it makes it far more accessible and fun to work with.

There are still rough edges of course. But try the official MCP out with Astra and judge for yourself.

Suggest trying it out yourself: Ask for something difficult from GPT-6 Sol and Opus 5.5 and watch what each one does. The difference is stark.

Edit: Defining "difficult" as a complex coding or systems task (or even series of them in a single prompt).

1 - https://bench.killswitch-lang.org

The coverage around 6.1 Astra seems deliberately playing into the dubious, recently headline "safety" narrative in a way that feels distinct. But you may be correct in which case, I would take the correction on board and maybe suggest a different alternative.

Although in theory if OpenAI was boycotted in this way the market pressure would force them to release. Then everyone moves back over there. Then Claude faces the same pressure. So even so, I think it could still work even if you have to trade off who you are boycotting from time to time.

Without more details on the credibility of the "safety" concern this seems like a totally coherent action for customers to take. We shouldn't put up with teasing.

After what DeepSeek pulled with V4.1 Flash I've given up on trying to map LLM versions to semver.

Astra seems better though.

Showing one potentially saturated benchmark doesn't necessarily fill me with a lot of confidence in the coding results.

Now, as it's linear, it makes much more sense to downgrade to 100$ OAI and pick up a 100$ Claude sub. (without doing the numbers) the usage should remain the same, total paid the same, but having access to best of both worlds. It should be a win for the user, and a loss for OAI.

With this in mind, it sounds like a fumble by OAI.

Lastly, I'd like to actually use it in the real world to see how far my plan goes or if its unusable.

Basically OpenAI aligned with Anthropic on the weekly usage with the caveat that OpenAI doesn't have a 5h limit.

Might want to hold off on canceling and continue to bleed them dry until the nerf hits