Definitely have to recommend putting $10 in openrouter and try deepseek 4.1 flash. I can’t believe how far I’ve gone with only spending like $0.70 so far on credits
When looking at the performance / price graph of artificial analysis, we can see that deepseek doesn't seem to have a better profile, just notably worse and slightly cheaper models, so in the future a chatgpt user will be better serve with switching to Luna or Terra that have better profile than deepseek.
I can use DS and others through my Kagi sub. The thing about ChatGPT was the integrated environment/memory and the ability to create artifacts, which make it very useful for my job (teaching /researching). I don't use llms for coding, nor for agentic stuff.
> Definitely have to recommend putting $10 in openrouter and try deepseek 4.1 flash.
I'm pleasantly surprised by grok models.
We use cursor at work and i'm at the $20/month plan.
I used to mostly use Gpt, composer and occasionally opus. But this month i maxed these models quota and I've been working with Grok 4.7 essentially non stop for the last two weeks.
Grok is fairly verbose and somewhat slower but in the end it does get the job done. I've done a surprising amount of work (planning, implementing, tool usage, analysis) on the base plan.
But you still wanted to say something, didn't you?
Well, if so I'll say something too – I would feel better giving money to a company led by a man who has stated repeatedly why he wants "maximum truth-seeking AI".
Ironically enough I'm currently on a ChatGPT Pro 200 package because OpenAI has been my platform for all my serious (non-coder-guided) coding work so far.
But with this new change I might actually finally jump ship. And maybe it would be to SpaceXAI and their Grok Ultra package. That's still $200/month for me, but I would get 50x more usage compared to plus, compared to "just" 20x with ChatGPT Pro 200. It looks tempting.
Musk's main concept summarised by Gemini:
"Truth as Safety: Musk argues that the most important aspect of AI safety is ensuring the system is maximally curious and honest, even if that truth is unpopular.
Raising vs. Programming: He compares developing superintelligence to raising a child rather than strictly coding it, warning that forcing an AI to hold contradictory or untruthful principles will break its logic and make it 'insane'."
Grok is the least "honest" out there. And you should 100 % never believe anything Elon Musk says, he's one of the most clueless and unreliable people in existence.
Grok had specific baked in instructions to avoid negative statements about Musk and Trump, how is that for truth seeking? No other LLM company has done that from what I know.
I’ve been using Fastmail for years now. Easy to use, reliable, and consistent. No major extra features but that’s exactly what I want for an email provider! I see it recommended here sometimes, so I’m happy to be that guy today
Can we just have it as an additional data point, on top of what we should already know from where the train should be from switching history? If we get 99% accuracy, is that enough to check with an operator “specify which track you are in, left or right” when the measured value is different than the expected?
In addition to that being unpractical, the train doesn't even know the state of switches, i.e. not whether it is on the same track as some other position. It's just that this is undecidable for a single train. (This is what my first comment was about, it's simply not known how to solve it on the level of a single train, likely because it is impossible.) However the answer for what to do if a train can't trust the network, is don't move. Or move by sight, which is limited to 40km/h for good reason.
On the other hand this is a complete non-issue and solved for more than a century on the network level. So there is zero need to invent satellite or vision based train detection at worst even using statistical systems, when you can use deterministic systems, for example using the fact that a train is out of metal, so it's detectable by the train closing a electric circuit between the rails. Or using the sensors that are installed at every signal, switch or other positions for precisely this question.
They didn’t say replacing 100% of flights or drives with trains, but the vast majority of trips people take would be popular enough to sustain regular service for those people.
You don’t have to ban a thing for 100% of cases, there will always be outliers. My wife and I love driving deep into the wilderness. But still the vast majority of our travel is routes with heavy traffic, let’s replace those trips
> you can find certain pop-culture lore, for example, covered in insane depth on Wikipedia; not everything was sent away to Fandom wikis
But if the pop culture lore has insane depth then it’s probably valuable enough to keep, yeah? If it has a few limited snippets and very few people writing about it as sources, then it’s a lot more questionable
Insanely deep lore is a dime a dozen these days. Every other fantasy book series has one. Every other video game has one. Not to mention fanfics, especially shared universe fanfics. Being deep lore should be a reason to delete, not to add a page.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Mr. Tik-tok from Oz to have his own Wikipedia page. He's less notable than, say, Knight Artorias, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue Knight Artorias deserves one.
Then again, neither does the Great Grey Wolf Sif, yet here we are.
Tik-Tok was a main character in a live-action film in the 1980s and the title character of a stage musical 1910s, along with appearing in about a bajillion sequel books and cartoon adaptations by many different people.
A minor fun fact: Playing Tik-Tok on stage was one the early roles of James C. Morton, who appeared in a truly ridiculous number of comedy films from the 20s thorugh the 40s alongside the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, and others.
Sure. Industrialization comes first though. We can care about jungles if we ever reach superpower status.
This climate nonsense is a tax on developing nations. We're sacrificing for the planet, meanwhile the US puts a couple centuries of distance between us.
Brazil's poor industrialisation isn't an issue caused by caring about the climate though. Destroying the Amazon to continue the same bullshit of exporting unprocessed minerals won't improve Brazilian society.
Why exactly is Brazil disadvantaged about climate policies to industrialise given it has enormous potential in renewables (hydro, solar, wind)? Could even have more nuclear power. Industrialisation accelerates with cheap energy which Brazil has plenty of.
Have you thought that maybe the nonsense is coming from inside your skull?
Flávio Bolsonaro proposed the creation of railways in the Brazilian north and northeast. Historically, efforts like these always end up abandoned due to complaints from leftist environmental NGOs. Leftist parties like PSOL have taken these environmental battles all the way up to the supreme court, which just sits on it without deciding for years.
So, are you prepared to ignore the complaints of the environmentalists?
It's a stupid proposal, railways should cover the most populous and economically active areas first since rail in Brazil is nearly non-existent outside of transporting raw mined ore. Replace the fucking trucks going up and down Brazil's south-southeast, which historically the car lobby blocked that to push for more trucks and cars. I'm very sure environmentalists would support a push to replace those trucks with rail.
Are you prepared to understand you are being swindled?
Unfortunately I have a few like you in my family, completely rotten brains from antipetismo and falling for stupidity like "building railways on the most difficult and least economically active area of the country", do you understand you are being lied to?
Nobody is "falling" for anything. I just used Bolsonaro's debate promise for the sake of argument. I agree that we should keep prioritizing the development of the south and southeast, and I have nothing against new railways there.
As for the rest of your comment, the truth is I don't particularly care either way. There is exactly one thing, and one thing alone, that I want from this government:
Impeachment and imprisonment of the supreme court judges.
They have four years to put those judges in jail. If they do, I am satisfied. If not, I will never vote for them ever again. It's that simple. I'm aware of the possibility that they could turn out to be swindlers. I'm using frontier AIs to monitor every last one of them.
That’s job security in the same way that a building maintenance guy gets job security from somebody filling the toilets with garbage everyday and flooding the bathrooms
Like sure it’s true that you’re more necessary now, but when you took the job you weren’t expecting to need to be elbow deep in shit every day, and you’d probably prefer to go back to the days of changing lightbulbs and vacuuming hallways
Calling a cybertruck too dangerous shows a quite high degree of regulatory conservatism. That could be good from some perspectives, but in the long-term it will leave the EU increasingly irrelevant as things develop, because new things always come with risks. But if your standard of unacceptable danger is 'hardened electric truck' then you'll be increasingly far behind on the curve of adoption, to say nothing of creation, of new tech because they'll all certainly go well beyond that.
Go back to times past and think about electricity for instance. Can you even imagine? 'Yeah we'd uh like to set up these poles all around the countryside and string some wires between them. And yeah if anybody touches those wire, they die and all the electricity gets screwed up. If lightning strikes them or a tree falls on them, yeah they're gonna fall and start fires. And there will be live wires - and uh yeah again, touch 'em and you die. Anyhow, we good to go? In exchange for this totally-safe-tech we'll be able to have electric lights! I mean how cool is that? Err and in full disclosure about those lights, uh don't touch the sockets or well.. you know, yeah - you die. Okay, so we good to go?'
Ironically it's the US that's a lot more regulatorily conservative when it comes to automobiles than the EU, if you look at things like matrix headlamps, replacing the wing mirrors with cameras, flashing brake lights, etc.
"A car with sharp metal edges that slices up pedestrians" is not a technical development.
Don't be daft, I don't think Europe's at risk of becoming irrelevant because they put a greater emphasis on pedestrian safety than the US.
Perhaps just look at a few ancient European towns with cobbled streets with no pavements, no wider than 2.5M and hairpin turns at many junctions. Perhaps it's just a product that doesn't suit the market.
Can you argue, in good faith, that you think Europe, in its current state of regulatory bureaucracy, would have greenlit the deployment of electricity? How about of cars in general? And for electricity - mind you all that risk I mentioned was genuinely at first solely and exclusively for electric lighting. Obviously all the things that build on top of electricity rather required electricity infrastructure to exist first!
> Can you argue, in good faith, that you think Europe, in its current state of regulatory bureaucracy, would have greenlit the deployment of electricity?
I can and so can anyone else, but what fantasy scenario is this? Which specific rules of this "regulatory bureaucracy" would stop it?
The reason the cybertruck is banned is because, in part at least, it has square edges instead of round. So somebody might get hurt! Seriously, the law is UN-R ECE R26. Here [1] is the rather incomprehensible text of the law. By contrast with electricity you're putting up stuff all around the country knowing that it will catch fire, it will kill people, and then trying to run it into people's homes where it again will kill people, and more - for more convenient lighting. To this very day, after more than a century of safety improvements, tens of thousands of people die per year from electrocution, to say nothing of electrical fires. This is so many orders of magnitude beyond 'square edges' that I don't think anybody can argue, in good faith, that the EU would approve electricity.
Similarly for cars themselves. You're speaking of machines which operate on the basis of hundreds of small explosions per second hopefully contained within a metal chassis under a hood to let a person drive tons of metal around which can trivially be weaponized to cause mass deaths, as has already happened multiple times in Europe. Even when not behaving maliciously, the number of deaths caused by crashes is in the millions per year. And again that's also after a century of safety improvements.
If gasoline cars were invented today, they would be immediately banned because gas is a deadly poison and fire hazard. It would be considered crazy to allow just anyone to pump gas into their car.
I find that in online discussions people become much more downvote/hostile oriented when they know they're wrong, but can't really argue against it, rather than when people disagree and genuinely think they're right - which tends to lead to nice debate.
People, in the short term, don't like the cognitive dissonance being rattled, but I think in the longrun that's what has the biggest impact on our ideological direction shifting.
reply