It will have simulated gear changes if that helps at all...

To be honest, it may help for the modern Ferrari driver. It doesn't help for those who appreciate the Ferraris from the '90s and before.

> Ferraris from the '90s and before

That was potentially 36 years ago. 36 years from 1990 would have been 1954.

What changed in technology from 1954->1990, vs change in technology from 1990-2026? Quite a lot.

Today's cars are a lot more similar in technology to those of the 1990s than they were to those of the 1950s.

I can fix a 90s car with 2026 car tools, but I can't fix a 2026 car with 90s car tools.

Because of the electronics. They're vastly different, there's tons more, and they're proprietary.

It's a 4-door, 4-seater. Sporty?

Well, maybe if I win the lottery, I'll be able to afford a Ferrari minivan? I'm so confused.

It worked for the M5.

Assuming this experiment involved isolating the LLM from its training set?

Of course it didn't. Not sure you really can do that - LLMs are a collection of weights from the training set, take away the training set and they don't really exist. You'd have to train one from scratch excluding these books and all excerpts and articles about them somehow, which would be very expensive and I'm pretty sure the OP didn't do that.

So the test seems like a nonsensical test to me.

BYD sales in January 2026 are down 30% YoY. Not looking great for them in 2026.

When I search for this, I find about equal numbers of stories with two opposing narratives.

One matching what you say; the other saying they're up significantly, e.g. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/byd-overtakes-tesla-world-lar...

I do not know what to make of this.

However, it is unimportant, as the main concern for your argument should be all Chinese brands combined rather than any specific brand. Unfortunately, given I'm seeing two narratives that seem to be mutually exclusive for BYD, I don't think I can trust web searches to tell me about all brands combined either.

However, even that is unimportant, as my point was more focused on the price and value for money, how Chinese models compete on AI for less cost; even to do badly in this regard (which they might or might not be given the mutually incompatible news stories I've seen) is less a narrative about Chinese market failure and more of a demonstration that hardly anyone really cares about the AI in the first place.

OpenAI could be profitable (easily) if it stopped training new models. Whether they will make that choice or not, who knows.

That would be short-termist though. So, quite unlikely. In my usage (code) they are still better than everything else I have tried. Point being that I am looking predominantly for the one llm that gives me the best code output. If they risk losing that advantage for immediate profit, guess I will cancel like I did for claude... (I still got a gemini subscription, for some reason it has a good UI, fast for common non technical requests).

Seems to have been my pattern of behavior with all these tools.

>If they risk losing that advantage for immediate profit, guess I will cancel

We call that "when the bubble pops". Can't wait.

Google and Anthropic probably won't stop training though.

They have positive gross margin and net margin. That's not ZEV credits.

Yes, all messed up for me -- and 0ms deployment (incorrect).

And yet CR says Tesla is #10 (#1 across all EV makers) now in terms of brand and reliability. Fred Lambert has an axe to grind. Why can't HN see that?

Perhaps. I suppose the biggest in history then? $1.4T valuation and 60% of shares held by non-meme institutions (like pension funds, S&P tracking ETFs, etc) when you factor out insiders.

“The market can remain irrational longer than …” - John Maynard Keynes.

Here’s a similar quote from the great enemy of markets, Benjamin Graham:

“In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.”

Why the downvotes? Jesus, I have a new Model 3 Performance and the matrix lights do exactly as stated.