Seeing how cheaply Xiaomi was able to train Mimo 2.6 I am starting to wonder if they are greatly over-exaggerating the real training costs to increase their valuations and investments.
I'm talking about approval for gay marriage not homosexuality. Obviously homosexuality is ancient. Homosexual marriage in the modern sense is absent from the historical record until 1971. Where it was portrayed it was typically as a joke .
I'm being down voted but I have no real stance on this. If anything I'm in favor of civil rights for all, but I don't see how that changes the historical record. Gay marriage is a novelty compared to female suffrage and interracial marriage.
Interracial marriage was federally protected in 2022, and only permitted by court opinion in 1967 in the US. You better believe it was not socially acceptable in much of the South just because the court said it was legal.
Heck, I bet there are communities today where you cannot safely live if you have an interracial marriage. I don't think it's as solved as you suggest.
I lived in a lefty urban environment in the 90s and recall many people telling me I wasn't allowed to date noon write women.
There is more to 'the world' than America. America was an aberration for legislating marriage so closely. Consider that someone in India in the 1800s would have thought that caste simply 'was', whereas the rest of the world would have been shocked by it. Similarly, anti-miscegenation laws, while common in America, and easy to think of as 'normal' from an American perspective, were not that common. Almost every culture normally socially approved of a man taking on a foreign wife, and most cultures welcomed foreign men who adapted into it marrying a local woman. There are countless examples from almost every part of the globe. It wasn't exactly uncommon. For the last two thousand years, the largest religions on the planet, would have supported a man and woman of different races to be married. Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy nor Islam nor Hinduism nor Buddhism (which together constitute the vast majority of the world) would have ever had any issues with interracial marriage. In fact, they would have encouraged it against a non-believer of the respective traditions. Not a single one would have supported gay marriage.
We have historical proof of homosexual marriage dating back to imperial Rome. IIRC the latest acknowledged homosexual union before modern times goes back to early 1500, before it started being prosecuted more aggressively by the catholic church.
There is no proof of homosexual marriage in imperial Rome. 'Marriage' as we practice it today does not have a direct analogue in Rome, but all the institutions one could point to that could be likened to it explicitly stated it was between a male and female. Can you please provide written proof? If it is common, it should not be hard to find in the extremely prolific writings of the Romans.
If you can understand italian I can suggest you Alessandro Barbero's Podcast, it's a pretty famous historian, there are several episodes about the topic.
I know where you're getting at - Not really the modern equivalent, only for the rich part of the population, contrasting opinions from historian at the time, etc.
But frankly the same objections could be raised even about the equally famous "did Ancient romans have running water in their homes?" question, and yet for some weird reason it's a far less controversial topic.
None of these were legal marriages. Of course anyone can stage whatever they want. This has always been legal even here in the US. The articles point out that no one actually held the emperor married to these men and just put it up to the emperor's eccentricity.
Moreover in the case of elagabalus, it's possible the stories were made up to discredit him and if they weren't made up they were highly scandalous and not at all well accepted. Forget marriage, even the insinuation he had slept with men was considered too scandalous to mention..
> Elagabalus had nothing at all to make up for his vices, which are of such a kind that it is too disgusting even to allude to them
You're taking a fairly strong stance, though it may not seem that way to you. "Same sex marriage was legalized in 1971" is a factual statement not in dispute. "Same sex marriage is a 21st century invention" may seem to you to be the same statement but it carries significant ideological baggage and is a way stronger statement way more in dispute. You go on to say things like "the real reason behind a lot of the LGBT acceptance rates going lower ... is that Muslim migrants have more kids and Islam is a very socially conservative religion." I hardly feel I need to explain why that is not a simple factual statement but really a statement of an ideological and political position.
So while I totally believe you may feel that way, you aren't simply being downvoted for indisputable facts, you've taken a position in a contentious ideological and political debate.
There is no debate. If someone were to point out a written record of an actual marriage that is using equivalent rites to a heterosexual marriage with exact legal recognition of that contract plus additionally rights over children, I will relent. This is not some ideological position. It's simply an absence of any such thing. For example, it should not be controversial to say that surrogacy is a modern day thing and that there is no historic record prior to it of a woman being considered the biological mother of a child she didn't bear. People are having their feelings about gay marriage override simple historical fact.
The Wikipedia page on the history of gay marriage makes the exact same point I've made. My statement is not controversial and is the accepted view. There are countless examples of gay people considering themselves married, but without societal recognition equivalent to heterosexual marriage. You cannot consider this the same as gay marriage because gay rights activists said that similar arrangements in the modern day were not enough and they needed to be married in an equivalent fashion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
What models are good at is so subjective it isn't OpenAI's place to really say "Use Sol for X and Luna for Y". They are publishing benchmarks so you can figure out how to best utilize each model. I get that it sucks to have to do this yourself, but eventually there will probably be some type of benchmark that help with discovering a model's strengths and weaknesses
The issue that OpenAI had when they had mini and nano models is that ambiguous the differences between those and everyone just used the base model anyway. I have no idea what type of job mini can do that nano couldn't or vis-à-vis.
I do wonder if it would just be better if they were named 6-small, 6, and 6-big?
> I have no idea what type of job mini can do that nano couldn't or vis-à-vis.
In my experience, Nano won't reliably handle complex open-ended tasks and is mostly suited for very explicit instruction that it can't screw up. It's no different from how there are some chores you can give to kids and there are other tasks you need at least a teenager for. If the decision tree of the task is very clear and conventional, Nano can be cheaper than giving the task to a relatively overpowered model, especially if it's something where the output is rigidly structured. This makes it well suited for skills that essentially run CLI commands and generate output, especially because it is usually faster. Mini is more like a discount version of the base model, and Nano is the dollar store version. Mini is more of a generalist and a fairly good deal if you have a moderately complex task that is conventional, but can be less conventional that what Nano can handle. I mostly used gpt-5.4-mini this year for my side projects because it's a pretty good generalist while significantly saving on costs. It is, however, somewhat dumber than the base model and more prone to ignore or forget rules you give it. I'd have just used a base model, but the low cost of Mini and Nano made them appealing to me. Maybe I'm a cheapskate, but I have hundreds or possibly thousands more in my pocket than many other users because of that.
This workflow I settled into with Mini and Nano didn't map cleanly on to the current generation of model tiers. With the price of Luna, you'd think it would be a replacement for Nano. In a sense it is, yet I didn't find that Terra became the new Mini. Terra is more powerful, better at explaining its own decisions, yet I've also found it to be relatively stupid while charging me more to use it. On the other hand, Luna with its reasoning set to "high" is what I consider to fill the role of Mini, and is good enough such that I no longer use Mini. Sol and Astra are great, but they're pricey. It could be my own brain and its bad perception, but so far I don't get the point of Terra. Luna succeeded at reverse engineering some abandonware with a very complicated licensing and virtualization scheme, and did so over SSH into a Windows VM with only PowerShell on the other end. Terra did such idiotic crap to my flashcards app that I stopped using it for anything after that.
This is why I find OpenAI's naming unhelpful and kind of pointless. I don't really care about the benchmarks that all these models are commonly run against. They're not that useful, IMO. OpenAI could easily give early access to these models, get a ton of feedback, and provide better insight to customers on how these things behave. Even calling Terra "gpt-5.6-overpriced-cheating-dumbass" would be better than wasting my time and money figuring it out myself. But that wouldn't make OpenAI as much money.
Fractal tool discovery is a fascinating idea! Have you worked on implimenting this into any agent harnesses already to any success? My first impression is allowing the agent to fork itself, not unlike launching a subagent, then returning it's response back to the main agent.
SpaceX is a different beast with extremely high friction to enter its market, a massive technology lead, and well developed preferential high level relationships with just about every country worth worrying about.
OpenAI/Anthropic meanwhile feel a bit like they're hoping to sell iPhones in a market about to be flooded by $20 flip phones, with almost no channel of their own to do it. And for whatever mad reason OpenAI are now signalling they will attempt to compete on price with flip phones despite their cost of labour, energy, and just about everything else being far higher
Wasn't SpaceX's insane valuation largely based off of Grok, because their rocket and satellite businesses could never be valued at over a trillion $$?
I don't see your metaphor to iphones and flip phones. This new Luna model is cheaper than deepseek 4.1 flash, except for cache reads. OpenAI having to compete with China is a much larger economic-political issue that is far larger than just our AI labs.
Any business would charge more if they could. Jevon's paradox would mean that they can make more money by charging less because demand is going to keep growing.
Ya, are LLM's not a great example of Jevon's paradox? I don't think Jevon's needs all else being equal. The paradox being that we should be able to use things less because they are more efficient, when instead they get used more.
Surely, a large part of the increase of the demand in LLMs is in their intelligence, but to hit the demand models needed to be made more efficient, and labs found that more efficient models, still demanded more usage.
I think their target audience are Apple Music subscribers who are going to watch the recordings of the live videos; they could probably care less who attend's their concerts. It doesn't seem like they want a music venue to support London's live music scene, but a music venue to produce content for their platform.
Frankly, that just makes it worse.
>They could have donated ten million quid to the Music Venue Trust instead.
oh, what the world could be like if music streaming platforms actually supported the industry that power them.
Since local models are largest constrained by context window you want to have a tiny system prompt. I know Hax: https://github.com/OleksandrChekhovskyi/hax was designed with local models in mind, but I haven't used it.
reply