KoolKat23

I'm not sure about this. I myself am curious about this model, but not for my own use. I've already written it off as too expensive. The money won't be flowing their way regardless.

Well I guess it's time the mathematics business model is updated.

This line of thought was made popular following the Navier-stokes thing, sadly it was only confirmed after the news died down that there was 100% no way that it used the involved researchers discussions with OpenAI in its output.

Quid pro quo, the models helping you, you're helping the model. Simple as that. Opt out of training if you have an issue with that.

Honestly I don't see the issue at all. So long as your infrastructure can handle it and there is no cost to you it should be fine.

The only proviso is that you should not be able to block distillation on your models you trained using others data.

I also don't appreciate the sensational framing of adult content here, it's purely meant to appeal to irrational emotions. We all know how models train, input and output are very different things here.

That's included in the definition of offense. Something that upsets or hurts someone. Intentional or not intentional.

It's no different really, just delayed, so slower. The same but slightly less effective.

I feel this is pedantry. It's been used in good faith as a neutral term to address all, basically no different to using words others don't like such as moist.

If this level of pedantry can be considered acceptable, how on earth do these folks justify/cope with terminology used in "empowerment" initiatives who often use very non-inclusive wording more so than "guys".

And Ironically across the sea in UK, to a smaller extent Ireland (and I'm not sure perhaps may be elsewhere too). There's been a concerted social media push by some folks to reduce inheritance taxes and portray them as bad. One visible proponent was Jeremy Clarkson, you know the large farm owner, it's quite easy to see why he would benefit.

The models will be a commodity, the resources to run the frontier will be the luxury good. This is already the case nearly.

There are plenty of things we use and found useful before we understood them. We knew how to make it, how it works was for the most part inconsequential.

Just btw, most assume when you say Cowork you're referring to Anthropic Cowork as it's the original rather than Microsoft's white labelled Cowork. And when you say Sol or whatever model you're referring to OpenAI and use on its servers. Microsoft's versions are not at parity with the originals. I feel your pain on being limited by silly enterprise restrictions.

On your point about "monitoring", personally I feel this is toxic corporate IT culture, enabled and perhaps pushed by the likes of Microsoft with all their tools, which they of course make money off. People have cellphones with cameras making most points in this area moot.

An alternative used in other big corporates is to set budgets, with tiered authorisation approvals for higher limits. The users and their managers can justify why and what they're doing that they need the additional tokens. This also encourages more efficient use of tokens on other work. More efficient use is sometimes counterintuitive. Laissez-faire generally works best.

Cowork requires user approvals for high risk actions such as emailing.

I'm assuming you're using Microsoft Cowork or Copilot or something. I suspect it's system prompt and implementation (tooling/harness) isn't the same as that of OpenAI and Anthropic even if the underlying model is supposedly the same. The answers provided can be wildly different and often for the worst.

Then Tao for one should have no issues with this release or any other release, if it's all actually about how he got there.

That's capitalism. The luddites weren't complaining because there was a new technology making their jobs less interesting or due to the "loss of a craft", they were doing so because it was taking over an industry and taking their jobs.

I mean paying for water, do you expect this to be drinkable or is that ad fraud? (I'm referencing a supreme court judgment here).

You're asking me what the value is in knowing what the answer to the question is?

I'm being serious.

I take it you don't watch content on your tv or your phone or tablet.

Most things these days, good or bad, are not designed for power users.

Ironically many here I'm sure are running MacOS.

You don't have to go through it. You can ignore it if you wish. There is no obligation on you to check it.

I feel your concern stems from the risk that there is additional noise everyone needs to cut through.

In reality this isn't any tom, dick or Harry giving you their vibe code output. They have spent millions of dollars on this output, so there is a filter. The biggest filter of them all, funding.

Furthermore, LLM's have given us another gift semantic search, we can easily check your work against theirs, this is valuable insight so instead of researchers wasting decades and fortunes pursuing an avenue that shows no value (this includes methods), they can purse new avenues they know what to avoid, in the same breath they know what to work towards.

Audio ducking is a big thing these days and becoming more and more prevalent. All phones do it.

There is truth in the statement. Hate to break it to you volumes are not uniform even for single sources.

Something interesting for folks to keep in mind.

Einstein did not typically use the formal peer review system to "settle on published work." Almost all of his major papers (including his landmark 1905 Annus Mirabilis papers) were published directly by journal editors without formal peer review.

When Physical Review sent his 1936 draft to a referee, Einstein was so outraged that he withdrew the paper and vowed never to publish with the journal again. He corrected his math only after an informal, friendly discussion with colleague Howard Percy Robertson—who, unbeknownst to Einstein, was the anonymous reviewer.

So it turns out there is a, perhaps informal, working system in place and we can deal with it.

Peer reviewed and published insights are proven invalid all the time. This is the nature of research and how we learn.

I'm sorry this framing is just moving goal posts.

If you're after new methods. Then new methods is the goal, the answer to the question is not the goal then. The animated response indicates the answer wasn't just a byproduct.

There is still something to glean from the answer. You have a further constraint. Otherwise whatever "new method" proposed may as well be hallucination, potentially taking you in the wrong direction away from the answer.

This line of thought is not unique, stonemasons made obsolete by uniform brickword suddenly were "worried about the art and preserving traditions".

Sorry I mean in very public releases such as this trove, where many have lean certificates attached and publicly scrutiny.

You know it's valid. You're not working on incorrect assumptions. Surely there's value in that?

That little picture is telling me DST all year round is perfect. 07:30 melatonin secretion stops. Will rise with the sun in winter :).

I don't think so, they just don't bother giving you the progress bar. Force "engagement".

To be fair I'd hope during peer review this would be apparent.

During your write up, I'd imagine you would check it's not already out there too. And once complete it's cheap and easy to run it through an LLM and ask is this covered by anything else out there. If its novel and not published it doesn't matter what others say.

Research is already messy as it stands. Something new can already be dismissed by incumbents as "not novel enough" especially in niche fields where they're likely to be the ones conducting peer review.

I never said it was journal worthy. Just its not all noise. As I say academics are welcome to ignore it, it isn't published in any journals after all.

I'm sorry I disagree entirely.

The more information the better.

The entire purpose of published work is to remove noise (and perhaps incentivize work through attributing credit).

This information is now out there. You can choose to ignore it if you wish. You may just find yourself a century behind in research.

And on that point most of this research has been looked at by their mathematics panel and comes with lean certificates, it's not exactly noise.

This to me is more the old guard not willing to let go or change their ways.