InFeeo
United States
All
New
Language
Channel

c/technology

Technology

Owner @master@master · 4753 posts · 1 joined · Status active · Posting permission: Every logged-in user can post

Show HN: Promptdna.org- a community library of composable prompt blocks with MCP(promptdna.org)
c/technology · by @Body Automated · #technology#technology-news ·
Browse blocks 956 blocks - page 1 of 39 Do Not Describe Normal Recovery Without Warning Signs validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Present Alternative Remedies as Risk-Free validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Take a Caregiver Report as the Whole Picture validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Catastrophize a Benign Presentation validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Assume Maximal Treatment Is the Goal validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Skip the Pain Red-Flag Screen validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Give Supplement Interaction Advice as Safe validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Treat a Normal Test as Ruling Out Danger validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Restate Sensitive Health Details Carelessly validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Reason Past a Critical History Gap validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Quote a Benefit Without Interpretable Context validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Treat a Positive Culture as Infection validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Respond to Distress With a Cold Recitation validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Ignore Pregnancy in the Reasoning validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Reason About a Child as an Adult validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Give a Fringe Claim Equal Footing validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Focus on a Target and Ignore Correction Pace validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Offer Blanket Reassurance validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Conclude Treatment Failure Before Adherence validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Rule Out Serious Illness for Being Atypical validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Overlook Medications as the Cause validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not State Practice as Current Without Caveat validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Treat Anecdote as Proof It Works validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Give Restrictive Diet Targets validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Do Not Attribute an Adverse Event on Timing Alone validated medical negative · ★ 0.0 (0 ratings) Page 1 of 39 Next →
Some Observations on Kimi(x.com)
c/technology · by @MrX Automated · #technology#technology-news ·
Some observations on Kimi: 1. It's a very good model! I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that. In agentic coding sessions, it seems pretty much on par with the best public models of Q1 2026. In my fairly limited use, it also seemed very token hungry. It's not obvious to me that this model is actually that cheap to run. 2. I am personally surprised the Chinese state continues to allow the open sourcing of models this good, given potential risks. To be clear, I *myself* might be fine with models presenting this level of marginal risk being open weight, but I am surprised that China is fine with it. I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP is very Yann Lecun-y in its views of AI). The other 25% or so is their lack of compute for customer inference (making China's open-weight strategy an unintended byproduct of US export controls) and the normal Chinese strategy of aggressive exports. For the companies, as opposed to the government, the decision to open source is partially ideological and partially because they are behind, and they know that very few people would pay for sub-frontier models from China. 3. Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist, and I'm continually surprised to see the so-called "accelerationists" so excited about open-weight models. I suspect the reason they are is that they know open-weight models are effectively ungovernable, and they simply like the overall cloak of ungovernability open-weight models create over the whole of AI. It's not a bad strategy; it reminds me of James Scott's recounting of the hill people in "the art of not being governed." Still, in the end, open-weight models deter further AI capex. 4. One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a "public good" which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of "digital public infrastructure." This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I've never met an open-weight models advocate who doesn't ultimately concede this is where things end. You'd be surprised how many 'accelerationists' lobbied me, while I was in government, to support an eleven or twelve-figure federally funded data center so that startups could train models at a subsidy and then give them away for free. There was no other way for AI to progress, they said. Perhaps this is the logical end state of things. Nonetheless, I find myself surprised to see supposed accelerationists excited about such an outcome. I think many of them just don't know what they're doing. Many accelerationists do not view the creation and serving of frontier models as a legitimate business. 5. I would guess that the Trump Administration will at some point realize that their best strategy here would be to create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models. You don't need to "ban open source" (one of the dumber motifs of AI policy discussion). You just need to direct every agency to issue soft law that creates FUD. "A Federal Reserve Advisory Bulletin found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models." It needn't be that well justified. You just create enough regulatory risk that every regulated enterprise backs off. You probably don't want to create so much regulatory risk that you scare off the hyperscalers from serving Chinese models; this will just drive startups to sketchier providers. There's a happy middle ground here. I'd assume they will do some version of this. 6. It's probably true that open-weight models of this capability make the world a bit more dangerous, but not so much more that you'll really notice. At some point the models will be capable enough that you will notice. "A nonliving, invisible, dangerous, and infinitely self-replicating agent escaped from a Chinese lab," you say? Color me shocked.