this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
302 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

84881 readers
4703 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 22 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

“Permanently” lol it’s a subscription and the terms say they can change the price at any time. How is it legal for them to advertise with the word “permanent”?

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 4 points 59 minutes ago

I think it's meant to convey that it's not a temporary deal on the old price, but a permanent new price point.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 12 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

60% of the time it works every time

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Permanent under the current pricing model, subject to change.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 35 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Prices are funny. My last job we were changing clients extra for doing a thing that didn’t cost us anything and was fast to do. How much we charged was completely arbitrary and depended on the partners mood. It’s all made up folks.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 24 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Yeah, which is why the "if minimum wage increases, so will prices" aregument is BS. They were going to charge the highest price they thought they could either way, the difference is that they are forced to increase the amount that goes to the people they are trying to pay the least.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 40 minutes ago

It's not BS, it's just not as direct of an impact as they are implying. If payroll is 10% of their expenses (assuming EVERYONE makes minimum wage) then doubling the minimum wage will increase costs by 10%.

Which could be (partially) absorbed from profits, could cause a 10% price hike... or a 50% price hike and fat bonuses for the executives.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

There is an element of minimum wage increasing, increasing prices because now there are more people that can afford to pay for things.

But yes it isn't because costs go up, and it really only applies to things people on minimum wage can afford and it's always less than the increase in wages.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

This would impact the companies pnl though, so shareholders and c suite will get less money. That’s why they’re scaring people into not wanting to increase wage.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 22 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

All numbers in AI are made up it's wild to see tankies glaze DeepSeek's fake numbers while being skeptical of Western corporations' numbers

[–] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Not glazing when its simply enjoying watching China beat the US at its own game

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

But the numbers are fake, so it really doesn't mean much to reduce a fake number by 75%, it isn't an indicator that DeepSeek is beating anyone at anything.

[–] clifmo@programming.dev 21 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Cost to end consumer is not a fake number.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

What does that number meaningful represent as DeepSeek doing well?

They can afford to lose more money on this? They have lower operating costs? They have a better way to make money of their users?

It could indicate any/all/none of theses

[–] clifmo@programming.dev 1 points 25 minutes ago

What does that number meaningful represent as DeepSeek doing well? I don't understand the question

They can afford to lose more money on this? Yes They have lower operating costs? Yes They have a better way to make money of their users? They are not as profit motivated as their competition

I don't think you understand Deepseek's role in the market. It's to intentionally undercut US providers.

[–] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

What do you mean by the numbers are fake? Are you saying the worth is over inflated? If that's the case, of course it is, none too different than virtually any other commodity.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

What does that number meaningful represent as DeepSeek doing well?

They can afford to lose more money on this? They have lower operating costs? They have a better way to make money of their users?

It could indicate any/all/none of theses

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 106 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

The lower prices could be aimed at undercutting the competition.

Mobster voice: Sure would be a pity if the monetization potential of those 2 huge IPOs (3 if you count SpaceX with xAI deadweight rolled in) went boom when that's all that's holding your economy out of recession (depression depending on how they cook the books).

[–] Slotos@feddit.nl 59 points 9 hours ago (6 children)

The way SpaceX IPO got crammed into index, it’s invulnerable to anything but an immediate incarceration of everybody involved.

Index funds will be required to buy the stocks at a listing price before market can decide how much they are worth exactly.

Afterwards, “economy in a recession” is synonymous to “free buffet” to those at the reins.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Yeah, the whole plan is to have every US citizen's 401k's autobuy into the SpaceX IPO.

Your retirement fund is Elon's exit liquidity.

Its a truly fantastic fraud.

Because... the Nasdaq... well a few weeks ago it changed its rules on the delay time between an IPO and it being part of the index, the index that everyone's 401k's buy into.

I guess you could say its going to be 'epic' when this all blows up.

See this is basically how the us economy works:

Poors roll over negative equity into their next car loan.

The ever diminishing 'middle class' basically does the same with homes, helocs, etc.

The owners roll over debt via corporate amalgamations.

But because the rich have a magical legal barrier of 'all the bad and dumb things i do are a legal fiction doing them, not me personally', well, the legal fiction gets what its due and/or evaporates when it can't pay what it owes... and the rich remain on top.

Yeehaw!

[–] edible_funk@sh.itjust.works 38 points 8 hours ago (5 children)

Yep this will be the fourth or fifth record breaking upward transfers of wealth I've lived through. I really don't want to live through another.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 27 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Still doesn't know what happened at Tiananmen Square, but can tell in detail how protests were brutally ended a few years later in South Africa...

[–] Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

If you run it locally there's no censorship...

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 32 minutes ago

And no price per token. So I assume we are discussing the cloud version.

[–] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Really? You sure, this is still true?

I have never run that one locally, but qwen doesn't "know" about specific Chinese historic events either when executed locally.

[–] Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

It was a couple of months ago at least. Also, if you use the deepthink mode online you can actually see the reply ( really criticising the Chinese regime) for a couple of seconds before it disappears. I've manage to screeshot it and also to trick him once about a "fictional" regime so I could have the answer.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It does, and it'll tell you about it. But it's their interface that censores the output, and it's not perfect. Ask it in English or Chinese and it'll censor it. But ask in Spanish or other languages and it doesn't get caught.

[–] napkin2020@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago

Huh. Apparently in Korean it's censored. It’s also not their interface. Am using their API and still getting rejected.

It will happily give you details if search is involved(via Searxng in my case) though, so that's something.

Other than that, amazing model. I'm not having political conversation with LLMs, let alone Chinese ones.

[–] chilldrivenspade@lemmy.world 57 points 9 hours ago

“permanently” means nothing when it comes to technology

[–] Airfried@piefed.social 26 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Okay I still won't use it.

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Its safety rails are far worse than any in the West. But to your point, fuck AI.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago (6 children)

There are plenty of rails, they’re just different ones. Like criticizing dear leader or Tiananmen square.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

I'm unfamiliar with AI chatbots that you pay for. What is a token?

[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

A token is basically just a word. Know how your phone’s auto suggest tries to anticipate the words you want to use as you type? In this case, your phone is using an extremely small token amount (typically only the previous two or three words you have typed) to try and predict your next word, which would also be a token. Your phone only uses a few tokens at a time, because as token count rises, processing requirements also quickly balloon.

And AI chat is basically the same concept, but with a massively inflated token limit. Instead of looking at your previous two or three words, it looks at entire conversations. And it also uses tokens to generate responses, the same way your phone is using one token at a time to predict your next word.

So when you pay for tokens, you’re essentially paying for a word count. As you continue a conversation, the token requirement for each subsequent request will increase, because it is attempting to look at the entire context of the conversation you have had.

Models have built-in token limits, to put a cap on how much memory is required to run the model. As conversations stretch on and you reach the model’s token limits, it will begin losing context for things that happened earlier. It will try to summarize earlier parts of the conversation to shorten them but keep relevant pieces in memory, or it will just outright drop old parts of the conversation and “forget” that context, the same way my phone has already forgotten the start of this sentence.

It’s a little more complicated that “each word is a token”, because the chatbot will combine your prompts with its own internal systems. Especially as conversations stretch on, and it begins to summarize old parts to keep them in memory. But that’s the most straightforward way to explain it.

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 13 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

My understanding is that tokens are basically words, and that when you ask a question it charges for all the tokens it consumes, produces, or processes. There's a lot of internal processing for each request, where the input text is summarized in different ways and combined with previous parts of the conversation, so it's not as straightforward as "word count of what you say plus what it says".

[–] iamthetot@piefed.ca 11 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Worth noting that a token is not necessarily a word, though can be. One word could also take multiple tokens. It can also vary from LLM to LLM and their tokenization methods.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›