nsoonhui

I believe so, this checks out with my experience, especially when comparing between the US models and Chinese models which benchmark scores are neck to neck with US ones.

My experience with Chinese open models is that they couldn't cope at all with my production work; both GLM 5.3 and Deepseek v4 ( or was it 4.1? Couldn't remember too well) went into infinite loop and wasted my tokens until my OpenRouter wallet reached 0; good thing I didn't enable the auto topup. US models, by contrast, breezed past them.

Even for simpler tasks, Chinese models took long time to complete, and I needed to supervise closely. The price for Chinese models, in the end, didn't come cheap, mainly because too much time was wasted on thinking, and this was regardless of whether they finished the tasks or not.

I am not too uncomfortable with the blatant Chinese model shills here ( I got comment history to prove this), but honestly why is it a problem for kimi or any other Chinese models to have influencers on their list or even payroll?

To me, as long as those influencers are giving truthful and useful information, why should we care whether they are coordinating with the model providers or even getting paid by them?

I'm absolutely bewildered that this is the top comment. 'Pacing the frontier,' if eventually enforced, will only affect US companies, not Chinese companies. How do you even 'pace the frontier' for Chinese models, and why should they agree to it?

China doesn't have a good track record of following signed agreements ( the WTO thing comes to mind), and this whole 'pacing the frontier' concept is even less enforceable than a signed agreement. So I would say that Anthropic/OpenAI called for this not because they thought it would eliminate the threat of Chinese models, but in spite of the risk of being overtaken.

I did try to use Chinese open models, but for my production work they simply couldn't cope at all; both GLM 5.3 and Deepseek v4 went into infinite loop and wasted my tokens until my OpenRouter wallet reached 0; good thing I didn't enable the auto topup. US models, by contrast, breezed past them. Even for simpler tasks, Chinese models took long time to complete, and I needed to supervise closely. The price , in the end, didn't come cheap, mainly because too much time wasted on thinking.

So maybe one day Chinese models will squeeze out the American ones, but today is not that day.

So no, I am not excited about Chinese models ( just because its open weight and not American).

It may not have to do with increased revenue, but it does have everything to do with reduced cost, especially developer's cost.

I bet every company is finding up how to level up their employees via AI, so that they can use less of them in the future.

So even without increased revenue, AI has its (mis)uses.

My experience seems to echo some parts of yours: Codex is stingy with tokens when compared to Claude Code.

But Codex is superior when comes to diagnosing bugs ( especially when they involve WPF UI threads), writing tests ( yes, even simulating the form cycles and asynchronous operations) and fixing them.

This is a shocking news to me. Can you elaborate with sources?

> Our investigation revealed that DeepSeek also deployed tactics similar to Moonshot’s. DeepSeek built a CoT extraction pipeline, relying on the same cross-session replay attack described above. DeepSeek also silently relayed exchanges to Claude without informing DeepSeek customers. Like GTG-16002, their customers were likely not made aware that their requests were being funneled to Claude.

If true, would that sort of explain why Chinese Models score high on benchmarks, but not quite as capable when given real tasks?

Not entirely sure how OpenAI is any different. Their quota system seems random to me. I can use up my quota in a single day, and the next day it gets refilled for no apparent reason. But another time, I also used up my quota in a single day, and there was no refresh; I was made to wait six more days.

To me, all of these are just exercises in getting me to pay for more tokens at API rates.

This is strange, but you were using Codex Terra, or Sol?

I used both.

Claude Code seems more generous with its quota, which is why I use it as my main driver.

That said, Codex does seem more capable, terse, and faster. There are some tasks that Claude can't handle but Codex can. One example was a WinForms binding/project deserialization bug. Sorry, the code is a mess, so even I couldn't quite figure out which part was causing which problem.

I initially thought the bug would be difficult to reproduce in a unit-test setting. Claude could only narrow down the problem and tell me where to put a breakpoint. Codex, on the other hand, actually managed to create a reproducible unit test first, and then used that to fix the bug. That impressed me.

The only problem is the quota. Codex burns through it very, very quickly, even when I'm just using Terra 5.6 Medium. That's basically why Claude Code remains my main driver despite Codex seeming more capable.

That's strange. For Deepseek I burnt through USD 5 on a relatively simple task, in one afternoon. That the simple task took a whole afternoon, a lot of baby sitting, the slowness, and so much money relatively, really shook me to the core.