Topfi

As opposed to a nuclear strike directly on a populated civilian area with no nuclear power plant nearby which also creates an awful result?

The main difference in nuking a fission plant over any other area would be creating longer-term fallout.

If the attacker is at all rational, unlikely to be desired because it makes the area hard to inaccessible for troops on either side.

If the attacker is horrificaly irrational and just wants to cause pure, long term, irreparable harm, unfortunately salted nukes would be a feasible option, independent of having a fission plant anywhere near the drop zone...

Nuclear disarmament, international cooperation and reliable defence alliances can (hopefully) be used to protect against this, along with resilient fission designs within reason. Not having a fission plant by itself unfortunately and targically wouldn't prevent an utterly irrational attacker willing to cause as much long term damage as possible.

Very aware of that harsh fact, living in a country that has a section in our constitution making nuclear power illegal (yes, very stupid) and is not part of any defensive alliance (while expecting the countries around us to defend us anyways), if someone wanted to "salt the earth" around Salzburg, Vienna or Graz, they could do it, even if we have no plants.

The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam flooded over 500 square kilometres and carried a significant death toll, caused major damage to the surrounding area and impacted over a million people.

Besides maybe solar, there is always the potential for harm during war times. Heck, even with solar, cutting off electricity supply to a major urban area can tragically carry a death toll that goes beyond even the few severe power plant disasters we as a species have ever encountered.

Fission is not an outlier here and designing any power plant for resilience is a necessary step, whether in war or peacetimes, whether in a tectonically stable or seismically active area.

Unless I am mistaken, it has been 10x of Pro weekly for a while with 20x being applied to the 5h limit, which now no longer exists.

I just checked, seems you are right. They had roughly a week with the lower pricing, then increased it, now decrease it again. Very odd. My testing was with the higher pricing and looking at AA, theirs seems to have been too.

They did, I just didn't include it: $0.07 cached input / M

So 10x-20x vs Deepseek v4.1 Flash and I don't have on hand how efficient Mistral is regarding cache hits, etc.

On the other hand, could be some decent competition lowering pricing if the models general performance warrants broad hosting.

They slashed pricing, it's now nearly half vs the preview (Input: $0.7/M Tokens, Output: $2.1/M Tokens vs Input: $1.36/M Tokens, Output: $4.18/M Tokens).

At the original pricing in my evals, Mistral Large 4 Preview was not competitive. With this price point and some improvements on top, this full release warrants a major reassessment.

[0] https://docs.mistral.ai/inference/pricing

Respect, hats off to reevaluate when presented with the info. Will fully admit, I myself lacked the ability to assess the true severity, mainly cause I try to stay away from PHP since my first encounter in sixth grade, so was going a bit back-and-forth due to what I was reading.

Mainly saw the severity in the economic impact of having to quickly patch so much, but taking offline being the right choice given the risk, along with of course all the decades old, never patches, blogs being botnet targets someday in the future, akin to Wordpress being commonly used for Ransomware hosting for similar reasons. And of course hopefully learning something from the timeline and leak for future disclosures. Feel things need to generally change from the status quo, barely has changed since the 2015 Google/MSFT squabble...

For our US friends, as context, this is akin to Rudy Giuliani being a cybersecurity expert. Partly, because it simply never was Sebastian Kurzs area of expertise, mainly because the referenced corruption scandal centered around the use of Whatsapp to facilitate said corruption, so, you know...

Followed naturally by Gemini Series S and Gemini Series X.

In all seriousness, if Google must continue gambling on pre-train runs, at least have a useful naming scheme. Like the month it was post-trained and the parameter count. At least that’d provide some insight.

Gemini 2T 10/26, bit of a mouthful but is it truly that much worse?

I honestly still need at least a week before I have a decent picture of GPT-6.1 Sol performance. The announcement pace is truly insane.

Fair point, though if they are still vetting, that'd likely also entail some post training or at least the addition of a filter, should they find something they do not like. As we've seen with Fable 5 and Opus 4.8 Fallback, that can significantly affect user experience and benchmark scores.

So if they are still vetting and changes can thus happen, that'd mean the score could change for better or worse. Not sure they'd want the embarrassment of a #1 score changing after announcement.

As written, both issues were fixed ten minutes after I posted the comment.

There was none for Fable 5.1, Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, GPT-6.1 Sol or GPT-6.1 Terra and while Astra had a period between announcement and availability, it was a single day, so not sure that applies either.

Gemini 4 Argon (at best Sonnet/Terra level) meanwhile took weeks to “come out” after their public announcement and when it finally did, paying Google AI plan users couldn't access Argon on Gemini or Antigravity even a week after. Three weeks from announcement to accessible for paying customers is not standard outside Google and this has been a problem with every Gemini release for the last year, so even using governmental requirements as an excuse isn’t possible here.

I will say that I dislike how OpenAI releases model only for Work and Codex but not via Chat, Anthropics "everywhere all at once" strategy is I feel the most user friendly.

> Carbon ranks #1 on the recently updated v5.0 of Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [0] at 59.

If you are going to hyperlink, maybe make sure that your model is actually on the page.

Also, the screen reader has a bug ([[duration]] minutes instead of the actual value) and you have once again announced a model we cannot use.

Edit: Both have been fixed after posting this. Maybe a Gemini 4 Carbon Agent has read and fixed the screen reader bug xD

I cannot fathom what motivates a lab, whose releases for the last year haven't been competitive, to shoot themselves in the foot like this. All this does is make it easier for competitors to snipe your actual launch, even if there was potential with this model (doubtful given 4 Argon, 3.1 Pro and 3 Pro), now everyone knows what exactly they need to release eval results wise to beat Carbon. There is this old idea of "Your competitor always is the first to have an idea what your next product will do", but in this case, Anthropic and co don't even need to guess, they got specific numbers to target.

Announce your models the moment they are available on API and in the subscription for all paying subscription users (cough Argon cough), stop with the cryptic tweets to drum up hype you know full well you won't live up to and make models that tool call, task adhere, task infer and handle long context tasks well beyond simple back-and-forth, chat style prompting. Reminder, during Ox Alpha, actual Google employees implied that was their model. How is this something anyone would believe is a good idea and how are they still allowed to tweet anything after? Please, stop that, it isn't helpful.

If frontier isn't your thing, stop wasting money on moonshot pre-train runs, fund research and open weight via Gemma and sell your inference hardware to other labs, that's far more lucrative anyway, as seen with Colossus 1.

[0] https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/artificial-analysi...

The person that succeeded already published [0]. Thread is barely active compared with the amount of engagement the challenges announcement received.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50237379

GPT-6.1 Sol Ultrafast also uses Nvidia hardware, not Cerebras, just far better provisioned vs how they usually provide inference allowing for higher throughput.

That has never been made available even to limited customers as far as reporting goes. Currently available ultrafast on GPT-6 Astra and GPT-6.1 Sol are all using Nvidia for good reason [0].

The fact that Cerebras, which has a willing and major customer like OpenAI begging at their heels to deploy on their hardware, now posts about a 2.8T open weight model says a lot.

[0] https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/gpus-openai-gpt-6-astra-ultraf...

We don't know yet. Not sure how that changes things either way. Impact goes far beyond getting exploited and the leak wasn't ideal in that regard either.

Sorry, what do you mean? There was/is an open RCE in PHP and the impact was/is massive.

Can anyone explain the two month window between reporting and disclosure? I do understand Responsible Disclosure as a concept, but looking at the timeline and severity, I struggle to understand the timing, especially the month that passed before an acknowledgment.

Edit: Apparently this had been reported more than half a decade ago [0]. I am getting more confused the more I look into this, hopeful for a well written, factual post-mortem from someone who hasn't actively avoided PHP for the last decade.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50181395

Robot experience this tragic irony for me...

> The AMD hardware is x86_64, which means lower battery life on average for normal users [...]

A Ryzen AI Max+ 395 powered tablet with 70Wh [0] gets the same battery life given the same task as a Nvidia N1X powered laptop with 99.9 Wh [1].

Power Consumption in their "Cyberpunk / Stress Test" is also lower at Ø109.3 (108.8-110.8) Watt for the x86_64 vs Ø134.5 (132.1-137.5) Watt for the arm64 system using the same settings, resolution and display brightness. They also get the same performance when normalising for resolutions and settings in Cyberpunk, so this is not an instance of one providing significantly more performance.

[0] https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-ROG-Flow-Z13-GZ302EA-Conv...

[1] https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-ProArt-P16-RTX-Spark-Lapt...

If I may, are there plans for visual input support?

I suspect this is going to be a Cybertruck/Boring Company situation, where we may get something ostensibly called the same and may even do something one could consider similar when squinting (maybe a bit higher than U9 jumps in scope) but with the specs and implementation differing so greatly that it shouldn't be considered the same. Exoskeleton vs body panels, 200kph+ on electric sleds vs Teslas (driven by human operators; tells you how much they trust their FSD tech) in a tiny tunnel, FSD on HW3 vs an upgrade maybe someday, etc.

And inevitably two groups will clash, ones pointing out how much this deviated from the original, often decade long promises vs another pointing at the naming, how it's still a product they like, ...

For what it's worth, I'd file this as a RCS demo for SpaceXGrokSI (or whatever they call themselves this week) above all else and if I were a betting man, might be a prelude to fusing them into SpaceXSuperXTeslaXIntelligenceX...