That warning infobox triggers an AI flag in my brain instantly.

Seems a huge part of the story completely absent to me.

Similarly, if I ever get a bit too vibey and don't carefully review code changes myself, the blast radius is generally significantly resolved by a carefully tuned "did you consider x, y, and z" skill after a first draft partnered with a "deploy an adversarial review agent for the worktree".

What would be useful is a cost metric. I'm curious how much I'd be willing to spend as a premium to not have those companies piping my conversations directly to the NSA. Maybe only some conversations? Claude and OpenAI are heavily subsidized, by all accounts, so Kimi K3 on a private endpoint might end up costing more or less - that's what I want to know.

The $200 plan is explicitly 4x the $100 plan[1] only for "per session". That's so vague. I initially pushed back against your claim, but reading now Anthropic is not at all clear, in fact.

[1] https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11049741-what-is-the-...

Yes it shares less, but I think the trade-off is you pay less in tokens and hopefully it's truly just not needing to say things because it truly does just better get what you're saying, think to read X markdown file or GH issue which contains the info, etc.

As long as I can still push back and get it to share its thinking on demand and I'm confident the model isn't actually basing things on poor premises, this is okay for me. I am more productive when not inundated with time-wasting check-ins.

That said, I absolutely lament the loss of the ability to access the thinking - I would happily read the "DANGER DANGER DANGER" internal gremlin thoughts fable 5 makes to verify something if they were accessed, and prefer that to a recap presented only for my benefit.

"Wow, X models is Y% better or worse than Claude Z model on T benchmark"

"That's irrelevant, they're just benchmaxing."

"Not useable for daily coding or agentic workloads, the vibes are totally wrong."

"It's almost as good, and costs a lot less, so I will absolutely use it."

"I cannot imagine justifying using these, as the step change means open models lower costs do not make up for the productivity loss"

I'm an unhappy Anthropic customer and really rooting for open models and non-gatekept intelligence, but how do we move on from this now meme-like model release discourse rigamarole. I do not know what that would be. I don't design LLMs nor benchmarks, and I genuinely appreciate that people do their best to provide information, even if non-perfect here. I'm sure most of you who actively read these comment pages on announcements must feel similarly, though, right?

That said, these fraudulent proxies are helping Chinese labs keep up, which might be to my advantage long term in eventually having a high quality private AI I fully control on my own hardware. That's not support, but I do recognize the incentive, for whatever that's worth.

If it was the next generation, why isn't it a major version change..?

What constitutes "special" for you, out of curiosity? Something chaining with a hypervisor exploit?

Kind of fun thinking back, but hopefully they weren't betting the farm solely on some university professor's at-his-pace work.

They have some really unique challenges in salt mines, for those who enjoy reading into it. "Les Îles de la Madelaine" in the St. Lawrence seaway is a kitesurfing destination with an absolutely incredible salt mine, for anyone curious[1].

#1 - https://amq-inc.com/en/mines-seleine-quebecs-only-salt-mine/