Not affordable, unless the devs are in somewhere like Vietnam. And there's still no way they can build as fast. And still, at that price point, quality would be highly questionable. So yh this doesn't survive beyond the joke stage.

The mention of quality puts it firmly into the joke territory, indeed.

Is this the new open source?

At least it recognizes that energy deserves funding, ideally beforehand. Yet it would be harder to sell if a human asked for payment, even if delivery was guaranteed.

> You want fucking nut jobs like this building models?

It takes *nut jobs" to advance tech like this at the speed it is. They have strong beliefs and they work hard to realize those beliefs.

> I do love the DeepSeek models, they're so incredibly cheap and for functionality that nears Sonnet.

> I'm super frustrated with how slow DeepSeek is though. And it's not nearly ready to be unsupervised for long periods of time like Claude is.

Tradeoffs ;). One thing I'm doing is to make my flows properly available on my phone, so I can run and supervise things wherever I may be.

That's what they say, but is it really?

Running a decent-ish LLM is going to take 64GB+ RAM. Most users only have/can afford 8 or maybe 16GB RAM. Local LLMs for doing anything significant is impractical for the many.

> Most users only have/can afford 8 or maybe 16GB RAM.

Excuse me while I laugh.

Im not talking about the denizens of reddit or facebook here, who were suckered in buying a 8GB memory laptop in 2025 or 2026.

We're talking about hacker news users. Devs, engineers, and the like. 64GB seems the average for running IDEs like VSCod(e|ium) or running dockers for testing.

In 2024, I bought 2x48GB DDR5 for $300 on sale at Microcenter. The expensive (faster modules) were $500 off-sale. Now, prices are fucky. But ive always tried maxxing my memory. Always been the easiest performance gain.

My comment absolutely stands *for this audience*.

> Non Americans getting worse code?

This is a scary thought: tailoring quality based on user profile.

If it doesn't happen already, politicians will mandate it. "We can't allow our enemies (foreign and domestic) to use our tools against us."

Good luck getting around something when you have no idea how and when it affects you.

How is that even possible? If you receive any kind of output, including no output, would you not be able to verify it?

It was good while it lasted. Time for me to resume my migration to another provider. One that promotes an open ecosystem, even if I can't opt out of them using my data to train. Heck I'll actively GIVE them my data and do my part in promoting openness, tiny though it may be. DeepSeek and GLM looking damn fine for a start.

There wouldn't need to be a redo if the products had been built with compliance in mind. This law isn't something new; it's been around for years now. Not taking it into account from the beginning with the intention of operating in the jurisdiction means there's definitely intention to skirt. Particularly given the previous issues in the same department.

No one implements compliance goals for fun. If they didn't think they were going to have to comply, they wouldn't do it. If they thought the law would be overturned they wouldn't do it. Same if they thought they would successfully fight the law in court, if they thought consumers would revolt, if they thought that they were a Special Squirrel who would get exemption, or whatever.

Does this put them stupidly behind schedule? Yes, and bummer for them, but I highly doubt that a company as politically savvy, legally savvy, and wealthy as Apple would do this "by mistake".

I wouldn’t want to try and develop a sandbox for an AI that could protect the user and yet still be useful. Having an AI act on your private data but only in the way you want is hard enough when it’s a model that you control on hardware you own. Having third parties running AI on your private data requires a level of trust that I wouldn’t want in the hands of random developers in the app store.