All that keeps jumping out at me is how they've set it to refuse giving users thinking tokens and prompts for full reasoning in output. Just drives me further away; I may not stop using Claude completely for now, but I'll be moving even more of my primary workload to Chinese providers. That's where openness and freedom is now at.
What Chinese models/providers are you using for this? I'm hitting Claude's weekly limits much sooner than I used to with roughly the same workload, so I'm interested in trying alternatives, especially ones with strong coding/agentic performance.
While it's a common tactic, and I'd vouch for it if you don't really know what you want to code in fact, but if you know what you want to get out of it, I haven't found anything I'd need opus 5.5 for instead of deepseek-flash (flash v4.1 hosted via platform.deepseek.com)
So you don't want the model to be better yet you continue to reuse it?... I find this kind of selfish behaviour increasing within us developers, like a fear of avoiding the inevitable
Do you use Mistral's models to help improve the European offering?
Otherwise if you don't care about your data being used in training you might as well use the best, which is the US models on a subscription plan. If you do care, use downloadable weight models served by reputable providers, or selfhost.
skeledrew · · focus · HN ↗
rajeevk · · focus · HN ↗
arcanemachiner · · focus · HN ↗
A common tactic is to used a big brain model like Opus for planning and reviewing, and a cheaper model for execution.
Amekedl · · focus · HN ↗
gobip · · focus · HN ↗
asdewqqwer · · focus · HN ↗
Other than that, I think they are cheaper last time I compared.
crefiz · · focus · HN ↗
villish · · focus · HN ↗
Otherwise if you don't care about your data being used in training you might as well use the best, which is the US models on a subscription plan. If you do care, use downloadable weight models served by reputable providers, or selfhost.