HN user
rgb at agiler.io
"Their leaders are often university grads from the west."
This is a generalization.. and you're right that there are terrorist groups run by people educated in the west... but this isn't true for Boko Haram. Barkura Doro has no formal education.
US bans are based on the incorrect idea that we have control over AI. But the ban only reduces the most advanced model available from US companies. Models from other countries continue development. It's as if the US decided to hit pause on competing on AI and we're just going to let someone else win it.
The US could be using these models to fix bugs and defend out systems.. but instead, we're all waiting for open source models to exceed the best unbanned model available in the US(0), and then we can all watch while attackers -- who can use any available open source model, including banned models -- to attack every US company on the internet.
US bans are a choice: a choice to lose to China; a choice to leave US companies defenseless; a choice to reduce competitiveness of the US in software. Every time a US person or company watches someone use models they are prohibited from using to achieve something US models can't, they create opposition to this ban. I can't imagine this is a sustainable policy.
0. Currently open source models are included in consideration for the "best model in the US" -- but if they're willing to ban the best from Anthropic/OpenAI, I wouldn't necessarily assume that all open source models will always be available within the US.
If that happens it'll be an absolute disaster. Imagine a scenario where Anthropic and OpenAI prohibit most US companies from using their latest models because of safety.. And meanwhile attackers use equivalent open source models to attack US companies.
Any prohibition on open source models will do nothing to fix the problem.. since attackers will never feel bound to the law. All advanced models must be available for defensive purposes.
Im not worried about this at all. The OpenAI, Anthropic and the US government can play this game all they want... They're just accelerating the development of open source models; and helping destroy the lead the US has built in AI, and their profit margins along with it.
This is like the battle between PostgreSQL and Oracle all over. Move up market, isolate yourself to enterprises, and watch while everyone else builds on PostgreSQL and erodes any technical advantage you had, until people just stop talking about you altogether.
serverless hosting for wordpress: https://www.agiler.io
The hard part is doing it without modifying WP, and serverless mariadb that can scale to zero.
The article has no date on it, but says deferred tool loading is a recent update that occurred after the article was written. Deferred tool loading was added in Nov 2025: https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/advanced-tool-use
So these numbers are at least 7 months out of date. Why is this being posted now?
US has over 10x the number of data centers as China; and produces 2x more energy per capita than China.
China's electricity generation going parabolic
Even if we all switch to Chinese models, the west isn't going to be running the model on Chinese servers... and the majority of costs are from inference.
cheaper yet equally good talent
China has tech talent, but this isn't a 3rd world developing nation. Chinese AI researchers are getting paid $10M+ USD/year salaries.
Also they're equally good, but somehow consistently behind?
musk sued long after the statute of limitations because what openai did was only objectionable to musk once he decided to become their competitor.
and in this scenario, i’m supposed to root for musk who tried to use the court to harm a competitor who’s winning in the marketplace against xAI?
no thanks. if you can’t compete in the marketplace, the court isn’t your backup plan. there’s nothing. positive about the weaponization of the courts.
was the industrial revolution oriented for ordinary people at the time it occurred? were a lot of workers buying flying shuttles in the 1700s?
300k tokens--the useable context window of a single agent--is about 40k lines of code and you can't figure out a natural breakpoint within that code to divide up the task?
ok "series of context windows spread across many agents".. sure much clearer.
Doesn't change my point: the amount of code the agent can operate on is very large, if not unlimited, as long as you put even a little bit of thought into structuring things so it can be divided along a boundary.
If you let the codebase degrade into spaghetti, then the LLM is going to have the same problem any engineer would have with that. The rules for good code didn't disappear.
300k-400k isn’t the current limit if you create modules and/or organize the code reasonably.. for the same reason we do this for humans: it allows us to interact with a component without loading the internals into out context.
you can also execute larger tasks than this using subagents to divide the work so each segment doesn’t exceed the usable context window. i regular execute tasks that require hundreds of subagents, for example.
in practice the context window is effectively unlimited or at least exceptionally high — 100m+ tokens. it just requires you to structure the work so it can be done effectively — not so dissimilar to what you would do for a person
In the same way that all coding docs are available publicly
mysql/mariadb and the shared filesystem requirements are a bit different than what lambda/etc provides. So not really, but it's all solvable clearly.
Solving scale-to-zero for WordPress hosting platforms WordPress is not serverless
Just not accurate. WordPress doesn't prevent this.. It's up to hosting providers to work on their infra so it can run in a serverless fashion.
For example: https://www.agiler.io
That's serverless wordpress that scales to zero.. no changes to WordPress, plugins or anything else.. just platform infra.
app.tryalma.com doesn't work on safari either.. says its chrome only.
So the story isn't really about firefox.. it's about Chrome's marketshare being high enough that some companies are happy to ignore every other browser.
But the security risk wasnt taken by OpenClaw. Releasing vulnerable software that users run on their own machines isn't going to compromise OpenClaw itself. It can still deliver value for it's users while also requiring those same users to handle the insecurity of the software themselves (by either ignoring it or setting up sandboxes, etc to reduce the risk, and then maybe that reduced risk is weighed against the novelty and value of the software that then makes it worth it to the user to setup).
On the other hand, if OpenClaw were structured as a SaaS, this entire project would have burned to the ground the first day it was launched.
So by releasing it as something you needed to run on your own hardware, the security requirement was reduced from essential, to a feature that some users would be happy to live without. If you were developing a competitor, security could be one feature you compete on--and it would increase the number of people willing to run your software and reduce the friction of setting up sandboxes/VMs to run it.
the best time to learn anything is tomorrow when a better model will be better at doing the same work
doesn’t that presume no value is being delivered by current models?
I can understand applying this logic to building a startup that solves today’s ai shortcomings… but value delivered today is still valuable even if it becomes more effective tomorrow.
The keen observer will of course know that there's no such thing as "federal immunity"
The scary thing is that there is.. you should look up "sovereign immunity". The government has complete immunity, except where and how the law permits it to be held accountable. And while we have a constitution, defending those rights through the courts requires legislation to permit it. For the most part, federal law permits lawsuits against states that violate the constitution, but have permitted far less accountability for federal actions that violate the constitution.
For example, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act only permits individuals to sue state and local governments for rights violations. It can't be used to sue the federal government.
There's many court cases, dating back decades, tossing out cases against the federal government for rights violations. Look how SCOTUS has limited the precedent set by Bivens over the years, basically neutering it entirely.
using utc on servers was very common in 2005
the second case isn’t illegal in the USA because it’s not a specific credible threat.
openrouter requires an openai api key.
the media but also the llm providers actively encourage this to fuel their meteoric valuations that are based on the eminent value that would be provided by AGI replacing human labor.
the entire thing — from the phrasing of errors as “hallucinations”, to the demand for safety regulations, to assigning intention to llm outputs — is all a giant show to drive the hype cycle. and the media is an integral part of that, working together with openai et al.
why would the llm share any of the blame? it has no agency. it doesn’t “understand” anything about the meaning of the symbols it produces.
if you go put your car in drive and let it roll down the street.. the car has 0% of the blame for what happened.
this is a full grown educated adult using a tool, and then attempting to deflect blame for the damage caused by blaming the tool.
pro is the $20/mo plan that they recently started allowing access to claude code.. but i’ve heard users hit the rate limit with a few queries.. so imo that sounds about right. the chat interface has its own limits separate from claude code.
if you work on a team most code you see isn’t yours.. ai code review is really no different than reviewing a pr… except you can edit the output easier and maybe get the author to fix it immediately
I think you misread my comment. I wasn't asking for help. I get consistent good output from Sonnet 4 using RooCode, without needing Gemini for planning.
Edit: I think I know where our miscommunication is happening...
The "think"/"ultrathink" series of magic words are a claudecode specific feature used to control the max thinking tokens in the request. For example, in claude code, saying "ultrathink" sets the max thinking tokens to 32k.
On other clients these keywords do nothing. In Roo, max thinking tokens is a setting. You can just set it to 32k, and then that's the same as saying "ultrathink" in every prompt in claudecode. But in Roo, I can also setup different settings profiles to use for each mode (with different max thinking token settings), configure the mode prompt, system prompt, etc. No magic keywords needed.. and you have full control over the request.
Claude Code doesn't expose that level of control.
same. i ran a few tests ($100 worth of api calls) with opus 4 and didn’t see any difference compared to sonnet 4 other than the price.
also no idea why he thinks roo is handicapped when claude code nerfs the thinking output and requires typing “think”/think hard/think harder/ultrathink just to expand the max thinking tokens.. which on ultrathink only sets it at 32k… when the max in roo is 51200 and it’s just a setting.
Sounds similar to `ask_followup_question` in Roo