Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
It’ll be good for consumers worldwide. America is not the whole world.
I, for example, am in Canada. We’ve established a bunch of very nice trade deals with China recently, we’re going to end up with access to a bunch of Chinese products that Americans can’t get due to their self-imposed trade war with China.
Immediately after the big announcements about Mythos there were followups by other teams that were able to find most of the same vulnerabilities with other existing models. I think the main takeaway there was that it’s just a matter of actually looking. Anthropic’s advantage may have been in the framework that let them do so in industrial-scale quantity rather than the cleverness of the particular model they used.
This sort of security scan is still new and important to pay attention to, but it’s not something that’s unique to Anthropic or that can be kept “contained.” Shades of how GPT-2 was considered “too dangerous to release” back when it first appeared. Comical in hindsight, and impossible to prevent anyway.
Kimi K2.6 is close to Opus. It beats Opus 4.6 on the benchmarks, so if Opus 4.6 was sufficient for your needs then Kimi K2.6 should be on par.
If you literally can’t access Opus because Anthropic cut you off I suspect that matters more than a slight difference in benchmarks.
The one currently making the headlines is Kimi K2.6, on the benchmarks it’s just short of Opus 4.7. It’s a trillion-parameter model so it won’t run on desktop computers, but it’s something a company could run on reasonably buildable servers for their own use.
For local use, I’ve been finding Qwen3.6’s 35B parameter model to be uncannily good. Gemma4 is also good, that’s one of the Western ones. These models won’t do the sort of heavy lifting that Opus can do but you don’t need that heavy lifting for all tasks.
Ironically, this is a great case study to illustrate the value of Chinese models. They’ve released a number that are on par with Claude’s latest models under “open weight” licenses that would allow you to run them yourselves if you wanted to, or to hire some other third party to provide API access. It wouldn’t matter what the original company’s “usage policy” is in that case.
There are a couple of Western open models that aren’t bad either, but they tend to be aimed at a smaller and simpler use case than Claude.
I feel like glue wouldn’t last as long. I have no idea how long the nail was, but if it’s a couple of inches deep I have no idea how you’d be able to get it off without an angle grinder. With glue you can chip it off, or use solvent, or a blowtorch.
Many years ago I came across a quarter that someone had nailed onto the sidewalk. In case someone’s looking for a less disturbing but still fun easter egg to leave for future people.
Tick tock, unfortunately.
I ignored the first half of your statement because it was just pointless badmouthing of me.
I’m ignoring the rest of your comment because it’s a weird goalpost shift. Why would Mozilla ask a bunch of random people on the Fediverse what they want? You’re upset because they didn’t personally ask you what to do?
And now you’re here to defend Mozilla waste by suggesting there are people who totally wanted it. (Are they in the room with you right now?)
FauxLiving, harmburgler, Avid Amoeba, and CyberSeeker are discussing it in positive terms elsewhere in this very thread. 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘 had a more cautiously open view. So yes, they are in the “room” with us right now.
Since you care about upvotes, note that many of my comments here have garnered a decent number of those too.
What’s contradictory? A lot of people in that thread about AI capabilities were in denial. A lot of other people are making apocalyptic statements.
See that “other people” thing? Different people have different opinions and react differently. That’s the point I’m making here, too. Not everyone hates this AI tool that Mozilla has put out.
In other words, “don’t have an opinion about AI that’s different from mine.”
Okay, so you only want to say things that are popular within a community, and you consider people who say things that are unpopular to be “trolls” that should be excluded from that community.
This is what makes social media into self-reinforcing information bubbles and leads people to be out of touch with the general public. Like this Thunderbolt tool - if “nobody asked for this”, as another commenter in this thread said, why do you think it was made? There’s actually a lot of demand for AI tools in the real world but communities like this one create narratives that convinced themselves that it’s all some kind of delusional grift with unclear motives. When someone like me comes along that challenges that narrative, ooh, troll. Downvote and drive out! And you wonder why everyone left seems to agree?
You should really just block me if you don’t want to hear my views. I suppose you could report me to the mods if you think I’ve actually broken any rules, but that normally requires a bit more backing it up than just disagreeing with my opinion or thinking it’s unpopular. Otherwise you’re just going to waste your time and make yourself unhappy.
You care about Karma points? On the Fediverse, even?
If it’s his “lower human horn” then he’s watched Futurama.
Really, you’re going to follow me around calling me a troll? That’s sadder than being a troll.
Oh no, they wrote a free program that you don’t want to use.
UnitedHealthcare didn’t seem to have difficulty.
Or opened its backdoor.
The US is already trying to throw its economic weight around bullying Canada, and we’ve already settled in to an effective economic defensive posture. Those trade deals with China are actually part of it, previously we were supporting various American initiatives to tariff China but the Americans tore up a bunch of agreements with us so we responded in kind. It’s unfortunate but they started it and we’re prepared to hold our own.