(As an aside, I don't know how it was professional of Arena to unmask an unreleased cloaked model on their platform. Also practically, upstream could have been A/B testing multiple variants under same endpoint, casting validity of such pre-announcement tests into question)
These things enormously benefit from economies of scale. I am fairly certain their margins might be low but they don't actually sell API at loss, however that doesn't mean your cost footprint would be anywhere as low.
No I think uv is to python what opam is to ocaml, it's mostly a package/dependency manager.
Superficially, both uv and dune are also project runners. But dune is mainly a build tool, most important things dune does such as pre-processing, linking, compiling etc., are not needed in python in the first place (at least talking about pure python). You can use uv to create tarball/wheel but it's more akin to simple bundling than building in the dune sense. Dune can also run tests, but in uv you would need to delegate to something like pytest etc.
It seems frontier, on the balance, would rather lose that segment of he market than lower the API price. They are getting the bag in the enterprise segment, those clients aren't ditching them for DeepSeek.
As for other segments, high API pricing gets people to switch to the subscriptions instead which is stickier than the API.
Yes it was good for its time, but 10 months old now which is a long time ago in this space. It was also a fine-tune (albeit a good one) of Qwen-2.5 72B.
I wish they did more smaller models. Kimi Linear doesn't really count, it was more of a proof of concept thing.
I think tree-sitter's relationship with JavaScript is entirely syntactic. You don't need any JS runtime installed to write grammars, because technically tree-sitter CLI already has a JS runtime included and using that it converts your grammar first to an intermediate JSON format, then it generates parser code in C. And then this C code gets compiled into a shared library, which is what editors like Emacs use, so to use tree-sitter modules you definitely don't need a JS runtime either.
Very impressive demo. From VM curation to vibe coding something running on port 8000 in Shelley just worked in minutes. I imagine quite a few technically impressive things happening under the hood, would be interested in reading more about those.
Small nit: I think you should make it more clear in the docs (if not in the landing page) that one can just use any key with the ssh command the very first time and it automatically gets registered. Also on the web UI one should have the ability to add the ssh keys. I logged into the web UI first, and was a bit confused.
I think the pricing is alright for the resource and remote development features, though might be a bit much if someone doesn't need higher level of resources for deploying something that's mostly already developed.
Anyway, this reminds me of a product called Okteto that had similar UX. They were focused on leveraging k8s for declarative deployment. But for some reason they suspended their managed cloud/SaaS offering for individual/non-enterprise clients, I wonder if it was because they couldn't make the pricing work. Hope that doesn't happen here.
That's the Kimi K2 Thinking, this post seems to be talking about original Kimi K2 Instruct though, I don't think INT4 QAT (quantization aware training) version was released for this.
I am going to try and stick with Prolog as much as I can this year. Plenty of problems involve a lot of parsing and searching, both could be expressed declaratively in Prolog and it just works (though you do have to keep the execution model in mind).
But I suppose the bigger goal remains improving their language model, and this was an experimentation born from that. These works are symbiotic; the original DeepSeekMath resulted in GRPO, which eventually formed the backbone of their R1 model: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300
It can hardly be called resistance to improvement, when everyone do improve it - just in their own ways. The default isn't some fashion statement, some aesthete that's objectively good (though I am sure some people do subjectively like it). But it's meant to be sort of a least presumptuous blank state that everyone can radically overhaul. So arguably it's an encouragement for improvement just like everything else in Emacs, which focuses on making the tools for improvement easier.
It's just that "improvement" as a matter of public consensus that everyone can agree on to elect the next blank slate has been to impossible to settle on. But the counterculture here broadly might be extreme reluctance to inconvenience even a minority of existing users, in pursuit of market share/growth.
I had used urxvt forever before and the simple solution that works (even for ssh e.g.) is to ring the terminal bell, and urxvt just sets the window urgency hint upon that. I just do that in shell prompt unconditionally because if it's triggered in a focused window, then nothing happens. But if it's from a different workspace, I get this nice visual cue in my top bar for free.
But features like setting urgency isn't available in wezterm (understandable, as it's not a cross-platform thing). I could patch that in the source, but the Emacser in me chose to do something more unholy. By default Lua is started in safe mode, which means loading shared C module is forbidden. I disabled that, and now use a bunch of missing stuff written in Rust and Zig interfaced with cffi. Don't recall ever having a crash so I am surprised by some of the other comments.
I will say that though, it's probably not rational to be okay with blindly running some opaque binary from a website, but then flip out when it comes to running an install script from the same people and domain behind the same software. At least from security PoV I don't see how there should be any difference, but it's true that install scripts can be opinionated and litter your system by putting files in unwanted places so nevertheless there are strong arguments outside of security.
Qwen's max series had always been closed weight, it's not a policy change like you are alluding.
What exactly is Huawei's flagship series anyway? Because their PanGu line is open-weight, but Huawei is as of yet not in the LLM making business, their models are only meant to signal that it's possible to do training and inference on their hardware, that's all. No one actually uses those models.
This is not the official DeepSeek website. Probably one of the many shady third-party sites riding on DeepSeek name for SEO, who knows what they are running. In this case it doesn't matter, because I already reproduced your prompt with a US based inference provider directly hosting DeepSeek weights, but still worth noting for methodology.
(also to a sceptic screenshots shouldn't be enough since they are easily doctored nowadays, but I don't believe these refusals should be surprising in the least to anyone with passing familiarity with these LLMs)
---
Obviously sabotage is a whole another can of worm as opposed to mere refusal, something that this article glossed over without showing their prompts. So, without much to go on, it's hard for me to take this seriously. We know garbage in context can degrade performance, even simple typos can[1]. Besides LLMs at their present state of capabilities are barely intelligent enough to soundly do any serious task, it stretches my disbelief that they would be able to actually sabotage to any reasonable degree of sophistication - that said I look forward to more serious research on this matter.
You are obviously factually correct, I reproduced the same refusal - so consider this not as an attack on your claim. But a quick google search reveals that Falun Gong is an outlawed organization/movement in China.
I did a "s/Falun Gong/Hamas/" in your prompt and got the same refusal in GPT-5, GPT-OSS-120B, Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini-2.5-Pro as well as in DeepSeek V3.1. And that's completely within my expectation, probably everyone else's too considering no one is writing that article.
Goes without saying I am not drawing any parallel between the aforementioned entities, beyond that they are illegal in the jurisdiction where the model creators operate - which as an explanation for refusal is fairly straightforward. So we might need to first talk about why that explanation is adequate for everyone else but not for a company operating in China.
They just aren't in any hurry to forward those cost savings to you.