YHK - yet another hacker news clone

They even gave their model a random nonsensical name suffix simply because OpenAI is now doing it, too. Monkey see, monkey do.

It had previously attempted to create that table as part of the test setup, so it apparently concluded that it was a test table.

During human review, it explained that it had simply chosen a table name inspired by the codebase.

So no, Google is not being punished, nor are they the people behind this technique.

I was excited to see what it would be. But I don't think I can argue that it makes as much sense anymore.

And I wonder if Google's main monorepo is already in Anthropic/OpenAI training data because of some stubborn dev.

Behind how?

I fundamentally don't understand LLM "brand loyalty".

All of the models are constantly leapfrogging each other and always have been.

Google had a long lag between releases (and still hasn't released Argon), but why wouldn't they be able to compete? It isn't like any of this stuff requires secret knowledge, the Bitter Lesson has proved true again and again, and Google can certainly scale computation, it is like the one single thing they've always done well in spite of all their other foibles.

- Person 1: X is garbage compared to Y!

- Person 2: Why?

- Person 1: Because I like Y.

I use a mix of Fable 5.1, Opus 5.5, and Gemini 3.8 Flash and Gemini holds it's own. Especially in writing, frontend, and sysadmin work. agy for configuring a NixOS system has been truly incredible.

Asked pi agent it to identify the main hero sprite size of game I was running. It had a ton of shader effects so it was hard to determine.

It used some cli tools to identify that it was a game made with Godot, decompiled the executable but data was encrypted, broke the encryption after writing a brute force tool to test keys extracted from the exe, then proceeded to extract the game gd scripts and assets, only to answer the question of the sprite size.

And I saw it do this twice, once for Android 14 and once for Android 16.

I think this is just within 3.8 flash's capabilities.

> Today, we’re announcing our new frontier model, Gemini 4 Argon, which is rolling out to a set of trusted cyber defenders through our Fairwind Program.

This is the kind of story that you tell to investors to justify the huge amount of cash burn. :-)

For now, for cloud training. but for consumers, nvidia vs amd reasonably close - the moat there is thin and shrinking. I suspect AMD will surprise us. nvidia has no motes in china, which may be a new source of (gpu) chip design. Huawei's Ascend 910C is about a generation behind... again: for now.

point is: moats dry up. I see nvidia's shrinking as a real possibility.

So far, that's not exactly how it's played out. Humans are still necessary for the leaps in capability or efficiency. A model can grind on a problem to eke out the most performance, and models can synthesize data and iterate on various techniques to find the optimal combination. But, seems like humans still have to provide the real thinking, and the talent and drive for doing that is not concentrated in one company or city or even one country. And, (surprisingly) a lot of the people involved are in it for advancing the field more than making another billion dollars, so they're publishing their research.

So, yeah, the moat isn't deep. Even the compute moat, that OpenAI, Musk, and a bunch of other also-rans (like Oracle) bet the farm on, isn't really panning out. The Chinese makers just spent their effort on making models vastly more efficient, since they couldn't do anything about having an order of magnitude less compute available.

The slightly lower Chinese open models are good enough for almost everything, too, and much cheaper. Like with humans there is plenty of employment for people with below genius level IQ's.

Custom hardware, data centers, huge cash reserves, deep/broad talent pool, and non-AI customer base are all huge advantages if not moats.

Google, Microsoft, or Amazon are more likely to be the AI leaders than OpenAI or Anthropic.

And Chinese labs openly publishing so much of their methodology destroyed any hope, which was inevitable

The standards body members are still fighting about whether memory safety is important enough to change the language for, so, I would guess the answer is "no".

And people are worried about human extinction when this is the potential trade-off!

C++'s death cannot come soon-enough.

Seriously though, things have changed so incredibly rapidly in the past year or so. I have never been such an efficient or such a proficient engineer than I have this past year (delivering feature after feature, project after project, faster and better than I could before with better feedback from users etc) and I don't even see the code any more. It could be c++, it could be python, or java or what ever - I don't really care any more: the computer deals with that trivia while I concentrate on what to build and how it should work.

Its amazing. It really is.