drob518

Fair

Not having access to the source is certainly a disadvantage for LLMs, though I saw an article the other day about a model running a disassembler on the binary, from that reconstructing the roughly equivalent C, and finally analyzing that. So, even if the binary is available there are paths.

Also, the attacker would have to run black box against the live environment which is much more difficult and likely to be noticed than offline white box.

And probably more importantly, AI can write a very simple logger with no extra features than you absolutely need in 5 minutes, if that.

Gotta be honest. This application seems like a mismatch for a TUI. I’m a TUI lover in general, but I would have gone a different direction.

I do this everyday with Emacs live editing a Clojure process.

Amen

In the multiverse version, the model isn’t any smarter, but it’s evil.

Is Gmail still in beta?

1. You don’t know anything about me, so don’t presume.

2. Which nursery rhyme? The tortoise and the hare is a fable, not a nursery rhyme. Even if you think the lesson was “faster is not always better,” which it wasn’t, faster is sometimes better. And in particular, when a machine is involved, all things being equal, faster is better. Would you rather use a fast compiler or a slow compiler, all things being equal except cost to keep the analogy with the original? Compiler A produces the same binary with the same optimization levels a compiler B, but in 1/10th the time. Assuming you can afford it or someone above you in your organization is willing to buy it for you, you take compiler A. If you can’t afford it, you lust after it. Why, because a slow compiler results in a slow iteration loop no matter what. With an instantaneous compiler, the loop is as slow or fast as the human part of it. You want to think some more, rearchitect this or that? Fine. Your code is always ready to run.

I get the sense that you’re anti-AI. That’s fine. I’m not sold myself, though I’m increasingly trending that way. For those that choose to use AI, I submit that a fast AI, all things equal (same output), is better than a slow AI for the same reason that a fast compiler is more preferable. Note that I’m not saying that faster overall development at all costs is preferable, or that we should just throw everything at the AI and stop thinking.

Code is an answer to a coding question or direction. Getting an answer quickly is always better than getting an answer slowly. You can evaluate the answer at your leisure. The human can take as long as the human wants. Meanwhile, the infrastructure is generating answers quickly for other people. Faster is always better, even with a human in the loop.

You’re thinking about this the wrong way. Yes, any individual developer doesn’t need this much power all the time. But any individual developer would like to get an answer quickly, which this does. You share the speed and capacity of this over a whole organization. Any one developer only uses a fraction of its capabilities at any given time. Getting an “instantaneous” answer is quite helpful. Think of it like a shared compiler; a developer is not constantly compiling, but having an “instantaneous” compiler is quite useful.

They’re just going to keep changing the terms, injecting more ads, and raising prices until their revenue falls. As long as the number keeps going up, they’ll keep doing it.

I’m at a loss as to why you think I said that people would only work at Apple for money.

Right. Also, I think a lot of folks are using it because it’s inexpensive, leading to overload with some of the providers.

Interesting. I’ve been using GLM 5.3 Flash for a couple months and found it to be great. What has it been doing that you found to be “too clever”? It sometimes gets stuck in loops. I once asked it to do a code review of a simple pattern and it went off on a 45 odyssey trying to analyze too much. But other than those, it’s been a pretty good daily workhorse. And you can’t beat the price. Even Deepseek 4.1 Flash is more expensive. And I switched to GLM 5.3 Flash from DS 4 Flash, my previous daily driver, which I also found quite good. Anyway, my point isn’t to start a “which model is better” subthread, but was just curious what behavior you’ve seen where it’s “too clever.”

Well, the moat is that cpu/npu development is very hard, requires talented engineers, and requires access to cutting edge fab process, all of which in turn costs a lot of $$$. So, sure, “anyone” who has all that can definitely breach Apple’s moat.

Yep, also a time-tested strategy.

If you can’t win everything, at least win a niche.

My immediate reaction is that it’s weaker on coding than other open-weight models and that coding is a primary use case for running locally (not the only one, but surely a major one). That said, it takes a lot to get full Kimi and GLM running locally.

Am I misreading the Argon numbers then? It leads on DeepSWE and Vibe Code Bench but lags on FrontierSWE and Terminal Bench. Should we be viewing Argon as a frontier coding model?

Because it’s Hacker News.

Yes, but why?

Oh, for Pete’s sake. The bodies from this holy war are barely cool…

When you’re that big, it’s all a focus. Keeping the growth going is job 1 and you need all cylinders firing to do it.

Gotcha. Thanks.

Then they have to be insured. Or the limit of their liability must be capped at the cost of the product or something. Otherwise they would have to reverse engineer every product they carry and just about every retailer would run the risk of being out of business any time someone pulls something like this. That’s obviously not happening.

My first reaction after reading the announcement post is that the coding scores look like a weak point.

So, basically they make you pass a licensed electrician exam but don’t give you the full license.

Not much unless you can show that they knew about it. Otherwise, they are just as much a victim.