Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Opus 4.7 - 400k vs 1m context - is there a difference? I've heard Theo - t3.gg talk about the fact that it is unlikely that Anthropic would have offered up a model with 1m context at the same cost, if it wasn't a different (i.e. cheaper to serve)...

petergostev's profile picture

Peter Gostev (SF: 22-26 June)

12,573 subscribers

29,203 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеНовости и политикаНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below
0:50

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

Hanako

14,325 просмотров • 26 дней назад

Most discussions around Claude Code focus on model quality or capability. But when you actually use it, the friction shows up earlier, more at the system level than the model itself. Token limits get the blame, but a lot of it comes from inefficient sessions: repeated context, extra tool calls, and small loops that quietly stack up. So it starts to feel less like “is the model good enough?” and more like “is the workflow slowing it down?” That’s where WozCode comes in. It helps streamline sessions, less repetition, smarter batching of tool calls, and tighter context usage so you can actually get more work done within the same limits. Woz just launched on Product Hunt. If Claude Code felt a bit restrictive before, it’s worth trying again with a cleaner workflow setup. Same model. Smoother execution. Upvote here:
1:01

Most discussions around Claude Code focus on model quality or capability. But when you actually use it, the friction shows up earlier, more at the system level than the model itself. Token limits get the blame, but a lot of it comes from inefficient sessions: repeated context, extra tool calls, and small loops that quietly stack up. So it starts to feel less like “is the model good enough?” and more like “is the workflow slowing it down?” That’s where WozCode comes in. It helps streamline sessions, less repetition, smarter batching of tool calls, and tighter context usage so you can actually get more work done within the same limits. Woz just launched on Product Hunt. If Claude Code felt a bit restrictive before, it’s worth trying again with a cleaner workflow setup. Same model. Smoother execution. Upvote here:

Parul Gautam

15,079 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Everyone's sleeping on MiniMax. Again. They just shipped M3. The first open-weights model to combine frontier coding, 1M context, and native multimodality in one drop. I plugged it into Claude Code this morning. Pasted a design from Dribbble. Watched M3 write production-ready React code in one session. At the agency, I just replaced Opus 4.8 with M3 for 80% of our coding tasks. The output is the same and we are running everything at a fraction of the cost. Open infrastructure is the future.
1:35

Everyone's sleeping on MiniMax. Again. They just shipped M3. The first open-weights model to combine frontier coding, 1M context, and native multimodality in one drop. I plugged it into Claude Code this morning. Pasted a design from Dribbble. Watched M3 write production-ready React code in one session. At the agency, I just replaced Opus 4.8 with M3 for 80% of our coding tasks. The output is the same and we are running everything at a fraction of the cost. Open infrastructure is the future.

Prajwal Tomar

12,904 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

CHINA JUST DROPPED AN AI CODING MODEL WITH A 1M CONTEXT WINDOW. And I connected it to Claude Code to see what it could actually do. Meet GLM-X Preview On paper, a few things immediately stood out: → 1M context window → Agentic coding capabilities → Works inside Claude Code → Designed for large-scale coding and reasoning workflows But specs don't matter much if the model can't deliver in practice. So I gave it a real-world task. THE TEST One prompt: > Build a modern AI lead generation dashboard using React and Tailwind CSS. Requirements: → Dark mode → Analytics dashboard → Lead table → Email outreach section → Responsive design → Production-ready component structure Instead of generating a few snippets, it planned the architecture, generated the dashboard components, created the Tailwind configuration, and walked through the implementation requirements. What impressed me most wasn't the code itself. It was how well it maintained context throughout the workflow. That's where a 1M context window starts becoming useful. Less time re-explaining requirements. Less context loss. More room for complex projects. The AI coding race is getting very interesting. And it's no longer just GPT, Claude, and Gemini competing for attention. Results from my test below 👇
0:33

CHINA JUST DROPPED AN AI CODING MODEL WITH A 1M CONTEXT WINDOW. And I connected it to Claude Code to see what it could actually do. Meet GLM-X Preview On paper, a few things immediately stood out: → 1M context window → Agentic coding capabilities → Works inside Claude Code → Designed for large-scale coding and reasoning workflows But specs don't matter much if the model can't deliver in practice. So I gave it a real-world task. THE TEST One prompt: > Build a modern AI lead generation dashboard using React and Tailwind CSS. Requirements: → Dark mode → Analytics dashboard → Lead table → Email outreach section → Responsive design → Production-ready component structure Instead of generating a few snippets, it planned the architecture, generated the dashboard components, created the Tailwind configuration, and walked through the implementation requirements. What impressed me most wasn't the code itself. It was how well it maintained context throughout the workflow. That's where a 1M context window starts becoming useful. Less time re-explaining requirements. Less context loss. More room for complex projects. The AI coding race is getting very interesting. And it's no longer just GPT, Claude, and Gemini competing for attention. Results from my test below 👇

Md Riyazuddin

31,199 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

THIS GUY SPENT 5 MINUTES SETTING UP A $20 CLAUDE WORKSPACE AND TURNED 30 MINUTES OF DAILY PROMPT CHAOS INTO A SYSTEM Most people open Claude, type 1 messy prompt, rewrite it 10 times, get the same generic answer and call the model “bad.” He opens Claude Cowork, adds the project rules, past context, working files, examples, decisions and a clean place for the model to remember what it is doing. Same Claude. Same $20 tool. Completely different output. The funny part is there is no magic prompt here. No secret template. No “10x Claude” trick. Just the boring layer Karpathy keeps pointing at: context, memory and structure before output. A setup like this can save 30 minutes a day, which is 15 hours a month. If you use Claude for client work at $50 to $100/hour, that is $750 to $1,500/month in time you stop burning on repeated prompts. The model is real. The output is real. The edge is in not making Claude start from zero every single time.
0:37

THIS GUY SPENT 5 MINUTES SETTING UP A $20 CLAUDE WORKSPACE AND TURNED 30 MINUTES OF DAILY PROMPT CHAOS INTO A SYSTEM Most people open Claude, type 1 messy prompt, rewrite it 10 times, get the same generic answer and call the model “bad.” He opens Claude Cowork, adds the project rules, past context, working files, examples, decisions and a clean place for the model to remember what it is doing. Same Claude. Same $20 tool. Completely different output. The funny part is there is no magic prompt here. No secret template. No “10x Claude” trick. Just the boring layer Karpathy keeps pointing at: context, memory and structure before output. A setup like this can save 30 minutes a day, which is 15 hours a month. If you use Claude for client work at $50 to $100/hour, that is $750 to $1,500/month in time you stop burning on repeated prompts. The model is real. The output is real. The edge is in not making Claude start from zero every single time.

Gipp 🦅

14,871 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Clawdbot creator Peter Steinberger 🦞 says Claude Opus is his favorite model, but OpenAI Codex is the best for coding: "OpenAI is very reliable. For coding, I prefer Codex because it can navigate large codebases. You can prompt and have 95% certainty that it actually works. With Claude Code you need more tricks to get the same." "But character wise, [Opus] behaves so good in a Discord it kind of feels like a human. I've only really experienced that with Opus."
1:47

Clawdbot creator Peter Steinberger 🦞 says Claude Opus is his favorite model, but OpenAI Codex is the best for coding: "OpenAI is very reliable. For coding, I prefer Codex because it can navigate large codebases. You can prompt and have 95% certainty that it actually works. With Claude Code you need more tricks to get the same." "But character wise, [Opus] behaves so good in a Discord it kind of feels like a human. I've only really experienced that with Opus."

TBPN

443,119 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

I just found a way to use Claude Code completely free. Claude Code is Anthropic’s terminal coding agent that usually needs a paid API key to run. But a viral GitHub project called Free Claude Code, now sitting at 37k stars, lets you skip the billing entirely. It works as a tiny proxy that sits between Claude Code and free model providers like NVIDIA NIM, OpenRouter, DeepSeek, and Gemini. Every request Claude Code would send to Anthropic gets quietly rerouted to a free model on the other side. The interface stays the same. What’s actually thinking behind it changes. Setup takes a couple of quick commands and a free API key from NVIDIA NIM or OpenRouter. Paste it into the local dashboard, pick a model, and you’re building. The catch is you’re not really using Claude anymore. But when the code ships, does the model badge matter? -- I have shared the Github Link in my free Whatsapp Community ↓
0:36

I just found a way to use Claude Code completely free. Claude Code is Anthropic’s terminal coding agent that usually needs a paid API key to run. But a viral GitHub project called Free Claude Code, now sitting at 37k stars, lets you skip the billing entirely. It works as a tiny proxy that sits between Claude Code and free model providers like NVIDIA NIM, OpenRouter, DeepSeek, and Gemini. Every request Claude Code would send to Anthropic gets quietly rerouted to a free model on the other side. The interface stays the same. What’s actually thinking behind it changes. Setup takes a couple of quick commands and a free API key from NVIDIA NIM or OpenRouter. Paste it into the local dashboard, pick a model, and you’re building. The catch is you’re not really using Claude anymore. But when the code ships, does the model badge matter? -- I have shared the Github Link in my free Whatsapp Community ↓

Vaibhav Sisinty

36,892 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Choose a model (any model) and build your application with it. Do not spend time swapping models early on. Do not try to optimize before you have a working system. This is one of the first recommendations I make to every new team I consult with. Eventually, it will be time to optimize the model. • You may need a cheaper model • You may need a faster model • You might need a smarter model Good luck if you stitched together 12 different APIs and SDKs from 7 different vendors. Over half of the companies I consult for run on Microsoft software and have access to Microsoft Foundry. Microsoft Foundry is a complete agentic ecosystem. If you're in that world and building AI applications, Microsoft Foundry is where everything lives: • Models (largest selection in the market) • Agentic SDK (Python, C#, JavaScript/TypeScript) • Tools • Evaluations • Monitoring They are fully integrated with GitHub and Visual Studio Code. The best part: Their agentic platform is fully agnostic of the models you use. You can integrate with any model using the same OpenAI-style API. Swapping one model for another takes 1 second.
3:49

Choose a model (any model) and build your application with it. Do not spend time swapping models early on. Do not try to optimize before you have a working system. This is one of the first recommendations I make to every new team I consult with. Eventually, it will be time to optimize the model. • You may need a cheaper model • You may need a faster model • You might need a smarter model Good luck if you stitched together 12 different APIs and SDKs from 7 different vendors. Over half of the companies I consult for run on Microsoft software and have access to Microsoft Foundry. Microsoft Foundry is a complete agentic ecosystem. If you're in that world and building AI applications, Microsoft Foundry is where everything lives: • Models (largest selection in the market) • Agentic SDK (Python, C#, JavaScript/TypeScript) • Tools • Evaluations • Monitoring They are fully integrated with GitHub and Visual Studio Code. The best part: Their agentic platform is fully agnostic of the models you use. You can integrate with any model using the same OpenAI-style API. Swapping one model for another takes 1 second.

Santiago

12,014 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

🦊 after the tour announcement came out yesterday, i took a look at moa’s reactions and there were a lot of moas who were disappointed and upset 🦊 you might think that we’re going for the same vibe, the same production and the same setlist but we received the setlist in a meeting recently and it’s different. it’s different and…there’s a variety of things prepared. 🦊 so you don’t have to think that it’s the exact same, for real 🦊 as people that are performing, me and the members honestly also want to do it differently. even as the performers, we want to do the performances in a new way and show you different sides of ourselves. 🦊 when we first heard of it, we were like “won’t it be the same?” but it’s very different 🦊 it’s very different and you don’t need to worry
1:30

🦊 after the tour announcement came out yesterday, i took a look at moa’s reactions and there were a lot of moas who were disappointed and upset 🦊 you might think that we’re going for the same vibe, the same production and the same setlist but we received the setlist in a meeting recently and it’s different. it’s different and…there’s a variety of things prepared. 🦊 so you don’t have to think that it’s the exact same, for real 🦊 as people that are performing, me and the members honestly also want to do it differently. even as the performers, we want to do the performances in a new way and show you different sides of ourselves. 🦊 when we first heard of it, we were like “won’t it be the same?” but it’s very different 🦊 it’s very different and you don’t need to worry

💬

472,837 просмотров • 1 год назад

Head of Claude Code: "The model changes so often that I sometimes get stuck in this old way of thinking. I find that new people on the team do stuff in a more AGI forward way than I do. You have to transport yourself to the current moment and not get stuck back in an old model, because it's not Sonnet 3.5 anymore. The new models are just completely, completely different."
0:52

Head of Claude Code: "The model changes so often that I sometimes get stuck in this old way of thinking. I find that new people on the team do stuff in a more AGI forward way than I do. You have to transport yourself to the current moment and not get stuck back in an old model, because it's not Sonnet 3.5 anymore. The new models are just completely, completely different."

Lenny Rachitsky

71,558 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

MIT PhD student Alex Zhang reveals the scaling result where a model trained on short tasks generalizes to problems 100x longer for free: "If you're very clever about the design of your harness or how you use the language model, you can almost get scaling gains for free." "If you train a model naively, there's no tricks. It's just the same way you train a model on these RL environments. You just roll it out, and then you just get some reward." "If you train it on only short tasks, like only tasks that are 10,000 tokens long, and then you were to run it on a similar domain, but at a million tokens, or 10 million tokens, or 100,000 tokens, it generalizes really, really well. If you look at it compared to even the base transformer, you get way better generalization properties." "When the model uses an RLM (Recursive Language Model) after it's trained on these short tasks, it will see some kind of trajectory of actions that it does. Between these two problems of different lengths, the RLM learns to see them as almost the same problem." "Token for token, they're almost the same. You can describe it in code. In one code setting, maybe the for loop is a little bigger, but it's the same kind of code and it derives the constants from the data. There's no hard coding, so they literally look the same." alex zhang
2:41

MIT PhD student Alex Zhang reveals the scaling result where a model trained on short tasks generalizes to problems 100x longer for free: "If you're very clever about the design of your harness or how you use the language model, you can almost get scaling gains for free." "If you train a model naively, there's no tricks. It's just the same way you train a model on these RL environments. You just roll it out, and then you just get some reward." "If you train it on only short tasks, like only tasks that are 10,000 tokens long, and then you were to run it on a similar domain, but at a million tokens, or 10 million tokens, or 100,000 tokens, it generalizes really, really well. If you look at it compared to even the base transformer, you get way better generalization properties." "When the model uses an RLM (Recursive Language Model) after it's trained on these short tasks, it will see some kind of trajectory of actions that it does. Between these two problems of different lengths, the RLM learns to see them as almost the same problem." "Token for token, they're almost the same. You can describe it in code. In one code setting, maybe the for loop is a little bigger, but it's the same kind of code and it derives the constants from the data. There's no hard coding, so they literally look the same." alex zhang

MTS

100,519 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

This is the correct response to what’s happening to Erika Kirk and what’s happening on the pro-Hamas Eurasianist slop “right.” And if more people have the courage to say this, I’m talking about people who are doing podcasts and who have lots and lots of viewers, we would be in a different place, but because you have a lot of people who are morally bankrupt they remain silent and pretend like that is the high ground. It’s not because your soul is not worth it a check. And if you are silent in the face of evil, that is the same thing as evil itself and God will not hold you blameless. I may not know a lot, but I definitely know that.
2:48

This is the correct response to what’s happening to Erika Kirk and what’s happening on the pro-Hamas Eurasianist slop “right.” And if more people have the courage to say this, I’m talking about people who are doing podcasts and who have lots and lots of viewers, we would be in a different place, but because you have a lot of people who are morally bankrupt they remain silent and pretend like that is the high ground. It’s not because your soul is not worth it a check. And if you are silent in the face of evil, that is the same thing as evil itself and God will not hold you blameless. I may not know a lot, but I definitely know that.

Insurrection Barbie

75,426 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Suno is limiting downloads, basically making a lot of the songs you make locked in their 'walled garden'. One of their main competitors, Udio, did the same thing after a settlement with UMG that restricts any downloads. This is 100% an injunction from the music labels who want to limit the "damage" that AI does to the profitability of music. There are two viable alternatives... >Minimax music 3.0. It is currently free to use up to 500 songs a day as long as your account qualifies for beta testing their music model, which should be anyone. It is a closed-weight model, but there are no restrictions on what you download and how much you download. The music quality is not as good as Udio or Suno, but it's pretty close overall, and it can understand very complex prompts to guide music generation. >Open-source music is not a very good alternative... but right now SongGeneration-LeVo2 is the best AI music model that's open-source right now. The music I put on the post is one such generation that I created on my PC. The problem is that it's hard to use. The comfyUI version requires installation on a separate portable install, specific transformer and flash attention versions, and additional libraries installed. The required models and checkpoints are scattered around Hugging Face, and some of the links from the original repo are dead. There are not many English guides, and most of the training data is in Chinese, so it struggles with English lyrics. To some extent, the demand for music generation isn't that high, compared to images and videos, so overall not many alternatives are around.
1:32

Suno is limiting downloads, basically making a lot of the songs you make locked in their 'walled garden'. One of their main competitors, Udio, did the same thing after a settlement with UMG that restricts any downloads. This is 100% an injunction from the music labels who want to limit the "damage" that AI does to the profitability of music. There are two viable alternatives... >Minimax music 3.0. It is currently free to use up to 500 songs a day as long as your account qualifies for beta testing their music model, which should be anyone. It is a closed-weight model, but there are no restrictions on what you download and how much you download. The music quality is not as good as Udio or Suno, but it's pretty close overall, and it can understand very complex prompts to guide music generation. >Open-source music is not a very good alternative... but right now SongGeneration-LeVo2 is the best AI music model that's open-source right now. The music I put on the post is one such generation that I created on my PC. The problem is that it's hard to use. The comfyUI version requires installation on a separate portable install, specific transformer and flash attention versions, and additional libraries installed. The required models and checkpoints are scattered around Hugging Face, and some of the links from the original repo are dead. There are not many English guides, and most of the training data is in Chinese, so it struggles with English lyrics. To some extent, the demand for music generation isn't that high, compared to images and videos, so overall not many alternatives are around.

Emerald Apple

16,152 просмотров • 19 дней назад

I have been testing DeepSeek-V4-Pro with the Pi coding agent. I am mindblown by how well it works out of the box. A few notes: I spent a few hours building an LLM wiki with an agent powered entirely by DeepSeek-V4-Pro on Fireworks inference. This is the first time I feel like there is an open-weight model that can reason at the level of Claude and Codex. And it does this in a cost-effective way with support for 1M context length. To be clear, I am using DeepSeek-V4-Pro inside of Pi without any special configuration. It works out of the box. It's exciting that there is a model that can just be plugged into a basic harness like Pi, and it just works. I've never seen that before. Most models require lots of configuration and setup. DeepSeek's DeepSeek-V4-Pro is clearly good at agentic coding (probably the best from the open-weight models), but the model is also great on knowledge-intensive tasks where reasoning matters. The agent pulled agentic engineering best practices from different company docs (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Stripe, Meta, Modal, DeepSeek, Mistral, Cohere), searched and digested Reddit and HN threads, summarized arxiv papers, and surfaced trending GitHub repos. Then it distilled everything into actionable tips across categories. I love the Wiki it built. The quality is really good. Here is a snapshot of what the wiki looks like: DeepSeek-V4-Pro handled the task without breaking stride. Multi-step research queries, code generation for scaffolding, context-heavy reasoning across disparate sources. For coding specifically, this is the first open-weight model that genuinely feels like a Codex or Claude Code experience. It compares in capability and actual multi-turn agentic work. What made the loop feel so responsive was Fireworks' inference speed (the fastest in the market) and the fact that they actually validate models at the systems level before shipping. No corrupted reasoning traces. Just fast, reliable iteration. The hybrid CSA and HCA attention design cuts KV cache to just 10% and inference FLOPs by nearly 4x at 1M-token context. This is what makes the agent loop actually fast and cheap enough to run in practice. For devs who've been watching open-weight models close the gap but haven't found one that actually delivers in practice, this is the closest I've seen. Try it here:
0:31

I have been testing DeepSeek-V4-Pro with the Pi coding agent. I am mindblown by how well it works out of the box. A few notes: I spent a few hours building an LLM wiki with an agent powered entirely by DeepSeek-V4-Pro on Fireworks inference. This is the first time I feel like there is an open-weight model that can reason at the level of Claude and Codex. And it does this in a cost-effective way with support for 1M context length. To be clear, I am using DeepSeek-V4-Pro inside of Pi without any special configuration. It works out of the box. It's exciting that there is a model that can just be plugged into a basic harness like Pi, and it just works. I've never seen that before. Most models require lots of configuration and setup. DeepSeek's DeepSeek-V4-Pro is clearly good at agentic coding (probably the best from the open-weight models), but the model is also great on knowledge-intensive tasks where reasoning matters. The agent pulled agentic engineering best practices from different company docs (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Stripe, Meta, Modal, DeepSeek, Mistral, Cohere), searched and digested Reddit and HN threads, summarized arxiv papers, and surfaced trending GitHub repos. Then it distilled everything into actionable tips across categories. I love the Wiki it built. The quality is really good. Here is a snapshot of what the wiki looks like: DeepSeek-V4-Pro handled the task without breaking stride. Multi-step research queries, code generation for scaffolding, context-heavy reasoning across disparate sources. For coding specifically, this is the first open-weight model that genuinely feels like a Codex or Claude Code experience. It compares in capability and actual multi-turn agentic work. What made the loop feel so responsive was Fireworks' inference speed (the fastest in the market) and the fact that they actually validate models at the systems level before shipping. No corrupted reasoning traces. Just fast, reliable iteration. The hybrid CSA and HCA attention design cuts KV cache to just 10% and inference FLOPs by nearly 4x at 1M-token context. This is what makes the agent loop actually fast and cheap enough to run in practice. For devs who've been watching open-weight models close the gap but haven't found one that actually delivers in practice, this is the closest I've seen. Try it here:

elvis

60,091 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

I've made a ton of money helping companies implement LLM-as-a-judge evaluations. LLM Judges provide a ton of value. But the hard part is choosing the model to implement the judge. • The family of GPT-5 models is very good, but slow and expensive. • Models like Gemma and Phi are fast and cheap, but not that good. Most of the time, you can only run a percentage of your traffic through the model (otherwise it would be too expensive and slow). But now, there's a better strategy.
8:07

I've made a ton of money helping companies implement LLM-as-a-judge evaluations. LLM Judges provide a ton of value. But the hard part is choosing the model to implement the judge. • The family of GPT-5 models is very good, but slow and expensive. • Models like Gemma and Phi are fast and cheap, but not that good. Most of the time, you can only run a percentage of your traffic through the model (otherwise it would be too expensive and slow). But now, there's a better strategy.

Santiago

29,970 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Dan has a distinctive lens for understanding companies and his view on LLMs as a blend of Netflix and Spotify is particularly interesting: "You are spending a ton of money upfront to train these models. You go sell them at extremely high incremental margins. You don't know what the revenues are going to be, but you want to sell as much as possible so that you can get the cash flow to build the next model. That's very similar to Netflix. When you're an early mover in this fixed asset business, you invest heavily, you get the revenues, and you spread it out over an increasing number of people. The difference is Netflix's content was differentiated. The models are more similar than they are different at any given time. That's where the Spotify analogy comes in. The differentiating factor will not necessarily be that Google gives you a better answer. However, the personalization matters. The first mover advantage is the more that these models know about you, you build up this data history and it becomes very sticky. What makes Spotify have pricing power? It's because they've tailored the service to take a product which is a commodity, and personalize it to the point where you're willing to pay a premium for that commodity."
2:19

Dan has a distinctive lens for understanding companies and his view on LLMs as a blend of Netflix and Spotify is particularly interesting: "You are spending a ton of money upfront to train these models. You go sell them at extremely high incremental margins. You don't know what the revenues are going to be, but you want to sell as much as possible so that you can get the cash flow to build the next model. That's very similar to Netflix. When you're an early mover in this fixed asset business, you invest heavily, you get the revenues, and you spread it out over an increasing number of people. The difference is Netflix's content was differentiated. The models are more similar than they are different at any given time. That's where the Spotify analogy comes in. The differentiating factor will not necessarily be that Google gives you a better answer. However, the personalization matters. The first mover advantage is the more that these models know about you, you build up this data history and it becomes very sticky. What makes Spotify have pricing power? It's because they've tailored the service to take a product which is a commodity, and personalize it to the point where you're willing to pay a premium for that commodity."

Patrick OShaughnessy

58,906 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

The 'Pro' model in ChatGPT does look like a real upgrade - generations are 3-4x times faster and look at lot better. I wouldn't say it is a giant leap forward, but a material upgrade - generations are richer, with more detail and coherence. Considering that generations take c.20 minutes, I wonder if it becomes viable to include the Pro model inside Codex. The Pro mode is where they have a clear advantage vs Anthropic, who don't have an equivalent model.
1:19

The 'Pro' model in ChatGPT does look like a real upgrade - generations are 3-4x times faster and look at lot better. I wouldn't say it is a giant leap forward, but a material upgrade - generations are richer, with more detail and coherence. Considering that generations take c.20 minutes, I wonder if it becomes viable to include the Pro model inside Codex. The Pro mode is where they have a clear advantage vs Anthropic, who don't have an equivalent model.

Peter Gostev (SF: 22-26 June)

153,665 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

i been running Qwen3.5-35B-A3B UD-Q4_K_XL through Claude Code since llama.cpp merged the Anthropic endpoint. configured it in minutes. everything was great. projects grew from single scripts to multifile systems with 8 modules and 3,000+ lines. then the chains started breaking. 3 to 5 minutes of pure autonomy and suddenly it stops. tool call fails. reprompt. it recovers. 2 minutes later it stops again. the model is fine. the harness is the bottleneck. saw a comment suggesting OpenCode. installed it. pointed it at the same localhost endpoint running the same model on the same GPU. the game is different. instead of stopping on a bad tool call it just keeps going. on wrong read it adjusts. if file not found it retries. the flow is unbroken. i watched it plan a refactor across 8 files, read every module, and start building without a single pause. in Claude Code that same task would have stopped 4 times. the tradeoff is sometimes it loops. same tool call repeated because the model loses track of what it already read. but here is the thing. i choose loops over pauses. a loop you can interrupt and redirect. a broken chain stops the flow and you have to reprompt to get it moving again. someone is solving this at the core level and i have a feeling it is the open source community. the fact that i can run this level of autonomous coding intelligence on a single consumer GPU with 24gb VRAM at 112 tokens per second. respect to the chinese labs. respect to the open source builders making this possible.
2:00

i been running Qwen3.5-35B-A3B UD-Q4_K_XL through Claude Code since llama.cpp merged the Anthropic endpoint. configured it in minutes. everything was great. projects grew from single scripts to multifile systems with 8 modules and 3,000+ lines. then the chains started breaking. 3 to 5 minutes of pure autonomy and suddenly it stops. tool call fails. reprompt. it recovers. 2 minutes later it stops again. the model is fine. the harness is the bottleneck. saw a comment suggesting OpenCode. installed it. pointed it at the same localhost endpoint running the same model on the same GPU. the game is different. instead of stopping on a bad tool call it just keeps going. on wrong read it adjusts. if file not found it retries. the flow is unbroken. i watched it plan a refactor across 8 files, read every module, and start building without a single pause. in Claude Code that same task would have stopped 4 times. the tradeoff is sometimes it loops. same tool call repeated because the model loses track of what it already read. but here is the thing. i choose loops over pauses. a loop you can interrupt and redirect. a broken chain stops the flow and you have to reprompt to get it moving again. someone is solving this at the core level and i have a feeling it is the open source community. the fact that i can run this level of autonomous coding intelligence on a single consumer GPU with 24gb VRAM at 112 tokens per second. respect to the chinese labs. respect to the open source builders making this possible.

Sudo su

67,104 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад