I mean it’d take minutes of research to realize people are successfully and efficiently running 4-bit quantized GLM 5.2 on MacStudio 512GB M3 Ultras at over 60 tok/s. K2 2.7 is quite literally designed for 4 bit quantization and runs even better.
How do you figure that? “also a reminder that as soon as Chinese models take the lead, they will switch to closed source too”
What specifically about their release strategy “reminded” you of that conjecture?
The premise that they only open source the models … because it somehow helps them leapfrog American labs, and once they actually can leapfrog them, they’d close source them, doesn’t really track for me. Am I missing something?
I mean I think we need our own domestic open weight labs. I just don’t particularly understand the point you’re making
I’ve been exceptionally displeased with Claude Code since end of February and switched completely to Codex in April. The blasé way in which one person (Borris) capriciously changes the system prompt multiple times a day, also no longer writing his own prompts (whatever that means).
That, the 5 different secret levers you have to pull to make it not stupid, the fact you hs e to go to the guy’s twitter account to find all the un-dumbing features and flags that aren’t documented anywhere else. That they decrease thinking budgets silently when they run out of compute instead of announcing the rationing, and gaslighting users at every step of discovery. The fact that internally they have their own coding harness and don’t use Claude Code primarily. The lack of formal evals and consideration for millions of users collective hundreds of millions of hours of investment in their workflows — that’s all off the top of my head, let me tell you how I really feel about what they did to Claude Code..
I adore gpt5.5 and maintain my own codex fork - but I have no idea how long I’ll get this performance / cost - I know it won’t be forever. I’d like to know precisely how much it’ll cost in hardware to run a gpt5.5 open source model locally. Hell a lifetime license to a model I can run locally is also be open to.
But I like building my own tools, from software to physical shop tools. I like being able to rely on my tools.
More responding here to the assertion that this is blowing up due to Fable.
It doesn’t matter if people have to suddenly live by gas turbines that run 24/7 because why again? Can you repeat that last part back to me but say it a little dumber for me?
This might be the best color palette generator I’ve ever seen. I used to work in Operating Systems, and trying to get a good color palette from a photo is HARD. A lot of very smart very well paid people have dedicated years of their life to this type of thing. Really fantastic work.
If the author of the blog post ever comes across this thread/ comment, bravo and I hope you feel pride in your work and I’d go so far to say discovery.
Huh, seriously? Have you ever worked in an office? Perhaps your mental picture of what op is describing might be misaligned? I just always assumed it was a rarer/ more disciplined style some people had
Remember when they shipped that version that didn't actually start/ run? At work we were goofing on them a bit, until I said "Wait how did their tests even run on that?" And we realized whatever their CI/CD process is, it wasn't at the time running on the actual release binary... I can imagine their variation on how most engineers think about CI/CD probably is indicative of some other patterns (or lack of traditional patterns)
As someone that used to work on Windows, I kind of had a vision of a similar in scope e2e testing harness, similar to Windows Vista/ 7 (knowing about bugs/ issues doesn't mean you can necessarily fix them ... hence Vista then 7) - and that Anthropic must provide some Enterprise guarantee backed by this testing matrix I imagined must exist - long way of saying, I think they might just YOLO regressions by constantly updating their testing/ acceptance criteria.
Why not provide pinable versions or something? This episode and wasted 2 months of suboptimal productivity hits on the absurdity of constantly changing the user/ system prompt and doing so much of the R&D and feature development at two brittle prompts with unclear interplay. And so until there’s like a compostable system/user prompt framework they reliably develop tests against, I personally would prefer pegged selectable versions. But each version probably has like known critical bugs they’re dancing around so there is no version they’d feel comfortable making a pegged stable release..
Good. It’s always insane to me that they get 1% of the iPhone CPU cost of ~$68 or something there around.
There was a lawsuit in 2020 or 2021 where some evidence was unsealed showing ARM gets 1% of the CPU cost. I can’t recall how that CPU cost was calculated - but I believe that was a part of their deal through the early 30’s. That’s less than a dollar per iPhone.
Fantasy price for your personal usage or the personal usage of most average consumers/ software engineers, sure. It bears repeating: you're not the target audience.
They've been in the display game a long time. For people that need the product capabilities for their specific job, like color grading, they seem to price them quite well, given everywhere I used to see $30,000-$50,000 reference monitors, I see Studio Displays now.
Correct. If you try to create a coding agent using the raw Codex or Claude code API and you build your own “write tool”, and don’t give the model their “native patch tool”, 70%+ of the time it’s write/ patch fails because it tries to do the operation using the write/ patch tool it was trained on.