So it can "draw" an image programmatically (e.g., "place a black pixel at (0,0), place a blue pixel at (0,1)," etc.), then look at the image it is drawing as it is drawing it.

Of course, you should be aware of the "pelican riding a bicycle" SVG benchmark test, which is effectively this process but in one shot.

>Consumers at large hate all AI art

I disagree. The consumers who hate AI art are very vocal about hating AI art. But most consumers likely do not care. Odds are many don't even really understand what "AI art" is. These are the same consumers who are the target audience of the large commercial projects which stand to gain the most from outsourcing their work to AI.

I doubt corporations like Disney will lean into AI too heavily too quickly. They have a reputation that they surely won't be willing to risk with such a venture. But don't be surprised when smaller studios start popping up which are able to leverage AI to produce work which competes with larger studios. Those smaller studios will love to capture that audience that doesn't care about AI. From there, the rest will ease into it as it becomes more viable.

But, to be clear: there will certainly be a core audience that will reject AI art wholesale. They will be catered to accordingly with human slop accordingly.

I would have really liked it if the author offered their perspective of the US version of these dynamics in a more one-to-one way. It'd let me "calibrate" their characterizations based on how accurate their version of the US side of this is based on my experience.

Regardless, I do think this attempts to at least apply nuance to this kind of discussion, and, of course, the author made it clear that they're aware of the kinds of faults I'm describing, so at least there's that.

How much data are you working with? lol

Seems like you're doing something professional-grade if this is the case. I imagine most people, like the OP, can basically use whatever machine they have laying around and never be concerned with storage size/speed.

I'm also curious if you've tapped into cloud computing. Not that using the cloud is cheap, but I suppose if I was in a position where I'm concerned with the cost of SSDs for a processing task, then I'd be exploring all of my options and I'd be surprised if the cloud wouldn't be an "easy" solution.

You make it sound like this is some noteworthy timeframe. I'd be more surprised if Jev wasn't immediately made obsolete within days of release (which was effectively the case), especially when backed by a company like Cloudflare lol

ML moves quick. Add the extreme hype and cash floating around in this space and you can expect that anything resembling something novel and relatively untapped is going to be pounced on and turned over basically immediately.

But that's all beyond the point, anyways. If they did hand you your phone and said, "enter your passphrase," you can just say, "I don't remember it." They can throw a fit and put more heat on you in various ways, but until they resort to torturing you or they develop mind-reading technology, there's not much they can do at that point until the case reaches a judge.

That's not to say "I don't remember" is a sound, blanket defense. But it's sufficient for demonstrating that these dynamics all depend on willing participants which is partially why these laws are designed the way they are.

I mean, there's a pretty big difference between labs publishing their research openly and a competitor utilizing it versus a lab breaking TOS to... hmmm, what's the word? steal data from a competitor?

>That’s because, unlike the Western companies, the Chinese are pretty much giving away their recipes.

Yeah, Western AI companies have never published their research. It's crazy how the Chinese had to independently develop the foundational technology that powers LLMs because Western companies simply never publish their research (I mean, as long as you ignore stuff like this <https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762>).

>The latest one shamelessly copied without acknowledgement is the breakthrough in KV cache optimizations that DeepSeek has generously shared with the world.

Thank you, generous corporation. I'm sorry that other corporations don't provide you free publicity for your selfless contributions to the world.

>Now I don’t know why they would freely give away such a breakthrough, but they just did

Well I'm glad the author finally got to their point. A very insightful analysis.

>They do seem to be a little embarrassed by the copying. Hence the silent releases without much pre-announcement for both Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6.1 Sol.

You have to be in pretty deep to infer this kind of emotion to these kinds of corporate activities.

>So the Chinese labs have thrown a lifeline to the Western loss-making labs, and I just have no clue as to why.

Then why write this article? Why point out these things just to have no conclusion?

This article sucks. Even if you hate US AI labs and are all aboard Chinese labs producing open models, there's nothing of substance here. This is the loose draft that you hand to your LLM to finish for you, but it seems the author just forgot to do so.

Even if you're willing to characterize US AI labs as evil and selfish and Chinese AI labs as righteous and generous (which is already completely trivializing these dynamics to the extent that anybody over the age of 14 can likely identify is lacking nuance), you can at least put some effort into producing some hypotheses about why these dynamics are occurring. Of course, odds are if the author did try to articulate some hypothesis, they'd likely quickly realize that the narrative they're painting just doesn't hold up.

They can release a new version every day if they wanted to. The question is whether or not the new releases provide substantial improvements or not. It's not hard to just go through the motions, bump the minor version, then make an announcement to rile up the users who don't get that none of this is standardized or regulated in any way and it's literally all made up by the company trying to sell them the product.

Let Anthropic pace themselves without any sort of enforcement or even agreement for others to pace themselves, too. Then Anthropic is gone, overnight, and we're back to square one, except now there's even more centralization of power and authority.

These companies are literally asking for governments to regulate them specifically because they need something stronger than just a couple of Tweets from some CEOs loosely agreeing to ambiguous terms.

The problem with this analogy, and really this whole post in general, is that it just doesn't recognize that these are businesses which are (at least from some perspectives) producing real value. This article makes it sound like the business model of OpenAI and Anthropic (etc.) is based entirely around building a doomsday device. In reality, the "promise" of AI is that it can greatly improve many people's lives. It's just that such power, wielded incorrectly, can be dangerous.

If you want to fix this analogy, you'd have to choose an activity which isn't effectively only detrimental. For example:

>Imagine your best friend is a professional bodybuilder. They keep telling you how the sport will one day kill him, and he promises you he's doing the best he can to minimize those risks. He even spend a bunch of his time on TV and writing blog posts about the harms of professional bodybuilding, but even more times talking about the benefits of bodybuilding. But every time you meet him, you just see him bodybuild, and he seems to be increasing how much he's in the gym, eating his special diet, etc., every day.

Would you be confused by how your friend is behaving? It is well known that bodybuilding can be dangerous. It has been the reason for late-stage crippling of bodies as well as very early deaths. But your friend isn't going to stop because there are some potential risks if you don't handle the activity safely. They like it. They make money from it. They're doing something they think is productive. They can recognize the risks, and even do their best to highlight those risks and try to mitigate them for themselves and others, all while fully embracing the activity.

Regardless, people like the author don't seem to acknowledge that there are good things that come with this technology. They don't seem to acknowledge that a single company can't purposefully stop development if other companies aren't obliged to do the same. They don't seem to acknowledge that "pacing" isn't the same as completely halting all development immediately.

And I'm not saying I'd trust what any CEO says at face-value, let alone the CEOs of these AI companies. But it's also obtuse to assume that everything they're saying is a clever scheme to trick the public into acting against their own well being. As if that's a tenable strategy in this context.

If these companies are all asking to be regulated, then they should probably be regulated. They probably shouldn't be able to dictate how that works, but it's really not unbelievable that they see a serious risk in their own well-being if this stuff goes unchecked: all it takes is for one truly catastrophic AI event to occur before they all get extreme regulations even if they, themselves, are acting safely. It's in their best interest to slow things down, but only if everyone slows down at the same time.

Nope. If all your doing is prompting an agent to build stuff (especially if what it is building is based on LLMs), then you might as well take it back to the whiteboard and rethink how you're spending your time/tokens.

I swear, the people who compare these streaming services to cable are all too young to remember that the average cable experience was flicking through channels until something remotely reasonable was on (and it was likely an episode or movie you've already seen many times before), you'd hop in part way through the content (so hopefully it was something you've seen before so you knew what was going on), you wouldn't be able to pause anything obviously, and about a third of your viewing time was forced ads. And all of this could be costing you over a hundred bucks a month in 2000s money in a locked-in contract lmao

Also weird that there are no "neutral gender" voices in the English language. There's also limited "use cases," like the "Gaming" use case is empty?

And there's no pricing listed anywhere.

I don't know, I guess their roll out is a bit sloppy. It's a bit of a shame, though, since the voices which are available all sound like generic Gemini voices to me. Nothing stands out is being particularly interesting or impressive about this.