Really now? What if the Tech Brotherhood decides to subvert the current administration by secret manipulating sentiment via the answers their models produce?

Then they can be held fully accountable by US law.

The key word here is “secretly”.

And a Chinese company could secretly do it.

Any legal deterrent can be waved away by saying “but what if they do it secretly?”

It doesn't change the fact that US companies are subject to US laws. Conspiracy would just make the penalties steeper. Is it pointless to have laws against fraud, espionage, tax evasion, etc?

Once the open weight models are banned in the US, there will be no incentives for major labs and corporations to release open weight models.

Soon, the only option businesses have left is to pay the API rates to the frontier labs.

We might start to see API rates drop, however, due to price wars.

> Once the open weight models are banned in the US

Bold assumption. Cryptography as a field had similar attempts at squashing access. Didn't end well for the censors.

You can prove an open source implementation of a cryptography algorithm to be backdoor free. You can’t do that with open weight models.

Even if you cannot know what is in an open-weights LLM, so it may include malicious content, it is still infinitely safer to run yourself an open-weights LLM, regardless who made it, when you can control as finely as you want its actions and you can customize token probability sampling, than to subscribe to an LLM as a service provided by an external company.

Easier said than done. Manipulating sampling probability is almost certainly detrimental to model performance.

API price rates drop should slow down if open weight models are banned.

Less competition.

No. Venders will want to capture the displaced users. So they will offer lower prices.

Open weight models don’t really compete with frontier models at scale, so they don’t really compete with each other.

I don't agree. Because DeepSeek is a few months behind Sota for 1/5 of the price even if you consider open router API prices.

I highly suspect models like Sol would be much more expensive without Chinese competition.

So to a point Sota pricing is already affected depending who you ask. And the tendency is for the gap to tighten.

The competitive advantages for US companies will not be left on the ground.

Yes, there is an enormous competitive advantage in using open weight models.

Don't really love the data-harvesting potential of that.

llama.cpp has strict policies on AI-assisted contributions. Most of these specialization projects are done by coding agents. So llama.cpp won't take them (which is fair).

No, it doesn't. AI contributions are welcome if you understand the code. Ping me directly if you want to have something upstreamed.

> if you understand the code

Well, I don't mean to sound rude or anything but that can be a lot to expect from maintainers of those projects.

As I said, it's better for projects like llama.cpp to be selective in this regard.

Well even that is okay. I can use my agent to extract something useful from it.

What's the developer experience like with Julia nowadays? Any IDE / static analysis / debugger options that doesn't feel like experimental?

I wouldn't call them experimental. They just suck IMO, and that's my biggest gripe with using Julia, as language alone is nice, especially with slowly improving AOT. Of course you will also get replies with completely opposing views, so there is no other way than trying it yourself.

Depends a bit. More traditional tools like static analysis/Debuggers/full fledged IDEs are somewhat lacking compared to your standard static programming language. Although there’s very good progress being made with JETLS on the static analysis part, and the VSCode extension is very mature.

But, on the other hand, you rarely need those kind of tools with Julia. The REPL+Revise in Julia is most often all you need. If you really want to jump into running code debugger style you have Infiltrator.jl

And in the year of our lord 2026, I’ll say that agents are very effective in debugging Julia, especially paired with persistent sessions/daemons like DaemonicCabal.jl or JuliaDaemon.jl.

While I agree that agents can do pretty much all the coding, I still would love to learn to work with the language myself --- Julia was supposed to be a human-friendly/human-first programming language, with elegant syntax and all that, so it would be a pity not to try it as a human programmer.

Oh yeah absolutely. One of my favourite ways to interact with agents is to spin up an interactive common session where both me and it can run commands in a shared environment. You can ask the agent to setup a MWE for you to play with and further explore in the REPL for example.

I used it for a few hobby projects in VSCode. It's not 100% smooth, e.g. I couldn't compile and run my code with a single shortcut. It's supposed to be possible to show graphs in VSCode but I couldn't make that work.

Debugging worked quite good. I didn't look for static analysis.

But I find programming in any language in VSCode less polished, compared to e.g. programming C++ with Visual Studio, which works out of the box.

What type of programs have you been writing?

The irony really is that LLMs are partly responsible for the walls and walls of text as seen in the video in the first place.

And now we are asking LLMs to solve it.

LLMs are the walls and walls of text. In the real world everything has graphics and illustrations.

I don't understand why "Cache warming for anthropic models" was not put into a standalone package, but has to be bundled with the "minimal" coding agent.

It's table stakes for using Anthropic APIs cost-consciously. They aren't building a minimal harness for nerd points; they are building it to be usable, and dogfooding it with Real Money to learn what that means realistically.

This might've made a better argument ca. 2005 wrt a 20-something Austrian's minimalist wsgi framework. Heck, I'll bet you could even find said argument somewhere in the Archive :)

Copied from myself above:

That goes against the philosophy of pi. Nearly Everything is a Plugin. Need to set the reasoning effort? Install pi-reasoning. Need subagents? Install pi-subagents. Need permission gating? Install one of the permission extensions (otherwise the agent can do everything).

A feature like cache warming on Anthrophic feels very strange in this environment. NOT saying that it is not useful. It just should be a plugin.

That's your philosophy of pi and it seems you are taking it from deepseek. It's stated that pi wants to keep the agent loop minimal, not the code around the harness. Also those extensions in pi can sometimes be very bad, as it depends on the maintainer. And when it comes to cache handling of the best frontier coding model, it's much better that pi itself maintains it rather than some rando online.

No I did not ask AI for this. This is the understanding I have from working with PI for a year.

They also say so on their website ( https://pi.dev/ ): "Pi ships with powerful defaults but skips features like sub-agents and plan mode. Ask Pi to build what you want, or install a package that does it your way."

I fully agree on the quality of the packages. Can vary quite a bit. I stick to very popular ones.

Changing the reasoning effort is built in and doesn't require a plugin.

Yer, that is my bad for not updating myself, sorry. I did miss the introduction of Alt + Tab or /thinking command for switching this.

Good thing I can remove another package.

Yeah, it's such a subjective feature. I don't really worry about the five minute timeout, but sometimes if I'm conscious about the fact that I have an 800k token context window that I haven't interacted with for a day, I will switch to Opus for compaction and then back to Fable for interaction.

In general, though, some kind of API ping on a timeout does not support my personal workflow, which involves dozens of active or stagnant agent sessions that stay open for weeks.

because "i came back from lunch and my fresh 5h usage limit evaporated" is not a feature

i guess you could blame the api, if you wanted.

What 5h usage limit?

On a more serious note: pi-agent shouldn't know about such arbitrary limits imposed by a company that gets paranoid when people use thrid-party agents to consume their Claude subscriptions.

It’s not reasonable to ignore one of the biggest players in the space no matter how much you disagree with them

That goes against the philosophy of pi. Nearly Everything is a Plugin. Need to set the reasoning effort? Install pi-reasoning. Need subagents? Install pi-subagents. Need permission gating? Install one of the permission extensions (otherwise the agent can do everything).

A feature like cache warming on Anthrophic feels very strange in this environment. NOT saying that it is not useful. It just should be a plugin.

It is actually reasonable to ignore them. It should be plugin/extension you can install if you want.

I not saying Pi should ignore them. I am saying that for a coding agent that has been advocating leanness and minimalism and "everything is a plugin", it's outlandishly bazaar for them to include this specific functionality into the agent proper.

ChatGPT Work mode is the one with a 5 hour usage limit I think

Anthropic's API has a five-hour usage limit?

I feel it's more about keeping US's massive investment on AI afloat. Added compliance will allow US to further sanction non-US models (i.e. the Chinese ones) as they can just label them non-compliant.

Ofc. This announcement is in all likelihood a calculated pr play to create some regulatory moat, because internal progress is likely stalling out

A thought experiment: robot bees can do everything biological bees do --- pollination for the crops and making honey, but they are tireless and cheaper to maintain.

Would beekeepers and farm owners still want to keep biological bees?

> robot bees can do everything biological bees do

From the perspective of the beekeepers and farmers and their obligations, sure.

But beyond the pollination, they wouldn't be participating in the ecosystem.

Now substitute bees with human workers. The problem is that the ecosystem, whatever that is, doesn't seem to need the extra human beings.

It's logical to serve the best version (quant) of the model at the beginning so that users keep testing it. It is also reasonable to think that the developer of the model tried to test various quant levels by gradually degrading the model's capabilities.

I mean that’s imaginative but not sure there’s any evidence at all for it, and it’s the opposite of what the comment you replied to observed.

> Why TF do we not have a display protocol that can do graphics natively over SSH in 2026?

Did you mean X server?

Plan 9 devdraw which is really nice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49384210#49404622.

X is well past its sell-by date.

Plan 9 is text first as it was written by Unix programmers who wanted to build an OS and write programs (Rob wanted a better text editor.) It's the OG TUI. Window managers like Rio can run in Rio. You control things by writing textual messages from the command line, scripts, or code, e.g 'echo 100 >/dev/volume' to set audio volume to 100%. Someone wrote a new WM called Lola so I ran Lola in Rio in Lola in Rio because I can. Sam is very much a keyboard driven modern TUI ed (the standard editor). Acme is a mouse driven TUI editor. Both can be automated by programs and scripts. You can edit text while reading your email and chatting on irc from within Acme.

BUT Lots of stuff missing. We don't yet have GPU accel. It's a MSSIVE undertaking. And it has to be carefully designed and would likely be a built around a generalized devcompute kernel device.