Built a basic authentication handler for this test just so it wouldn't be in the training data of either model. It had deliberately planted bugs. One was a hardcoded secret, another was a wrap-on-0xFFFFFFFF bug as a result of a malloc(length+1).

Qwen 3.6 found both, alongside two other issues I hadn't even considered, and the location of the magic value. GPT-5.4, though, missed the malloc issue (flagging memory exhaustion as the only risk), it missed a separate timing bug (it explicitly said the function was safe), and it hallucinated the location of the magic value. Qwen correctly identified the integer overflow. GPT-5.4 did not.

I then compared basic research between them using SearXNG for web search. For example, the current status of MTP in llama.cpp. Qwen 3.6 27B found the current PR, but flagged a related issue that shows the current implementation can be slower than just using a draft model right now. GPT-5.5 Thinking found the same PR, but didn't flag the downsides.

In a similar comparison, I asked both models how I should get started with ESPHome as a total beginner. ChatGPT suggested an ESP32-S3 and a BME280, which is... just not a good idea. It also talked about the ESP32-P4 not having Wi-Fi, and installing with HA or Docker. Meanwhile, Qwen3.6 27B said regular ESP32, DHT22, and mentioned HA, Docker, and pip as installation methods. While GPT was good, it was just throwing out jargon for a prompt that explicitly requested it for a beginner.

It kind of blew my mind that in all three of these, Qwen landed it better.

I've been writing for nearly a decade, and I can assure you, all of this is human written. I've long been writing about the Linux kernel where it's been relevant to my coverage, and there are articles under my name talking about low-level technical aspects in drivers and kernels from as far back as 2017.

I get that it's hard to know what to trust out there given that Dead Internet Theory is beginning to feel like a reality, but comments like this can be quite upsetting after spending days researching and writing an article like this. I totally get criticism of the article itself, and I'm fine with that, but it feels as if people are too quick to jump on the "must be written by AI" bandwagon. I receive it, my colleagues receive it, and for the people who I know put in so much effort into their work, it can be upsetting to them as well.

As was mentioned in another thread, there were actually a couple of typos in this article when it went live. I cleaned those up once they were pointed out, but AI doesn't make typos. I get it to an extent; hostility and accusations of all kinds have been levied at writers for the years and years I've been in this industry writing long-form content and analysis. But with the proliferation of AI, that hostility has really ramped up over the last couple of years.

SWE bench for example creates a predictions file and evaluates the results in the harness. Without Codex 5.3 being in the API, it can't.

"The headline finding from this social CBA is that for every €1 of public money invested in the pilot, society received €1.39 in return"

This came about as a mixture of greater economic activity from participants, cultural impacts that saw public-facing artist activities increase, and improvements to wellbeing of participants that reduced their requirement for psychological interventions by the state. The state also predicts that the further roll-out of this program will benefit consumers with lower prices for artistic works, as there will be more supply overall.

The scheme has been quite popular here in Ireland. Given the history of Ireland when it comes to art (both in the sense of spoken and written word, and in other mediums), it makes sense to introduce a scheme like this to safeguard and uplift those who produce art.

[1] https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-a...

The thing is, given the other advances that were outlined in the DeepSeek R1 paper, it's not as if DeepSeek needed to coast on OpenAI's work. The use of GRPO RL, not to mention the training time and resources that were required, is still incredibly impressive, no matter the source of the data. There's a lot that DeepSeek R1 can be credited with in the LLM space today, and it really did signify a number of breakthroughs all at once. Even their identification of naturally emergent CoT through RL was incredibly impressive, and led to it becoming commonplace across LLMs these days.[3]

It's clear that there are many talented researchers on their team (their approach to MoE with its expert segmentation and expert isolation is quite interesting), so it would seem strange that with all of that talent, they'd resort to distillation for knowledge gathering. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, it absolutely could have, but a lot of the accusations that came from OpenAI/Microsoft at the time seemed more like panic given the stock market's reaction rather than genuine accusations with evidence behind them... especially given we've not heard anything since then.

https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/O1-Journey https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-29/microsoft... https://github.com/hkust-nlp/simpleRL-reason

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40265407

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

This isn't a criticism of the Pixel 6a, per se. This article is not meant to be a critique of the 6a, but rather, is using it as a tool to illustrate an overall greater point. The reason you don't understand the criticism of the 6a is because it's not supposed to be criticism.

The phone costs a lot, and a lot more than most other devices that are in a similar boat of "mid-range". It has a lot of bells and whistles that normal consumers won't necessarily care for, because it doesn't matter how great the camera is when a lot of people are just using their phones for the likes of Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. A Nothing Phone, Nord 2T etc will get 80% of the way there in the camera department after the photo is on social media, and most people won't care for the difference.

However, the primary argument of the article is not to critique the Pixel 6a. Far from it. The problem is how the reason it's considered good value is because of the US carrier market. This article is primarily taking aim at the US carrier market and not the Pixel 6a. It's just a tool being used to illustrate a point.