I thought Carbon for composable stood well on it's own marketing. As did Argon, for impervious. Next to one another the pair comes off utterly cockeyed and sleazy.
I think that's aspirational, whereas the censoring of training data can reasonably be operationalized. Whether it'll work out in practice and produce something of value, I have no clue. [Edit: sorry, I see what you mean. Yes, I concede that rebuttal.]
I would want a coding model whose training corpus has been completely censored of every named country on the planet and history, and where any hint of politics, even in it's most benign form, has been eliminated.
Tired of tribalism, even if emergent and unintentional. Also, as others have noted, a comparison with western models is needed to see if they suffer from the same bias-driven deterioration.
Tangentially: The costs could be justified even if it doesn't turn into profit, no? Because if the price of good, robust software plummets, then that itself would be a a solid return on investment for the world.
Assuming they can achieve funding without IPO probably yes. But if they can't there's always the dilemma that "if [good guys] won't do it then [bad guys] will". I'd like to think that the leadership at anthropic is principled even if the actions of the company as a whole has been less than stellar morally speaking. I'd be curious to see their moral calculus transparently laid out in public.
This is weird. I can't think of a better compliment that is simultaneously safer. They'll always trail on data generation then, no? So I can't see the point. Best case for moonshot they get to lie about benchmarks that are gamed regardless, is how I see it.
I think the way to understand the objection here is that it's rhetorical flair (grandparent's dictum) that feels like it's intent is to assuage -- because it's a conditional that is implicitly loaded with an assumption about the current state of affairs ("not today") --, but that reasonably speaking, already things are bad enough to make such a conditional disingenuous. "Maximally evil" is just stressing it, though not technically true, because obviously things can always get worse. Personally, (and the reason I reply here since it hasn't been raised elsewhere in the thread), I have always objected to said conditional but on grounds of the principle that it leaves an opening to argue against what should be an absolute right (the standard for excellent conduct should not be "don't worry, we're not the worst so it's alright when we do it").
I find the language less impervious than has been suggested generally, but that it's reasoning is astonishingly, unbelievably bad. Not sure why the focus has been only on language, am I the only one seeing this?
Only way to improve safety of software is the ability to find the flaws of said software. If they did lower safeguards, it's probably positive for software safety standards.
Tried it, Opus 5 is just as conceited and incompetent and Opus 4.8 (and always ego-tripping when facing it's contradictions), think I'll stay with Fable who behaves like a professional without a fragile ego. Sonnet 5 is probably safer for high-assurance applications due to it's non-ego-fragility.
Sonnet 5 is probably better than Opus 4.8 in many cases -- you may want to try it; I now use only Fable and Sonnet unless the task is explicitly one where Opus can't de-scope and be lazy (e.g. replicating exactly a system as a coarse model to be used for refactoring-and-lowering, (model system in Idris) is the last thing I used Opus for because it had no choice but to stay on scope).
Since this will not be able to be used for coding or code auditing, what use is it? Not being glib, not a rhetorical question. I'm trying to stretch my creativity, and I can't see what it's for.
I think it betrays cynicism about the tendency for single-objective optimizing market actors to rent-seek and cartelize. I don't think it's a stretch at all. On the surface it would be equally preposterous to suggest that breathing could be theoretically revoked by the government, which truly is preposterous but we do have those laws in place depending on whether the air you breathe has "illegal substances" in it. But then again, explicit revocation is a high bar when you can throttle the free use of computational resources by regulatory capture: the AI incumbents could say, for example, that AI is so dangerous that it must be kept out of the hands of the unwashed masses. Another excellent strategy (with a rather high bar to entry) would be to distort the markets themselves by ensuring that your prospective renters can't afford basic compute.
Interesting. It's the only commercial distro I could ever stomach, in fact I really like it but don't use it, (because there's a non-commercial distro that I like much more). (Edit: my point was that it would feel like a real loss if it were to deteriorate)
Alright, it was my assumption that we'll be left with a totally dysfunctional economy, and in that sense whatever's in you bank account means very little. If I were an oil exec I wouldn't trade that world from what we had before even if money was my only objective.
What's in the autocorrect dictionary usually has nothing to do with what you typically write. No reason to wonder (i.e. if the insinuation being that that's a word they'd typically use).
More or less. Unless it's something to do with the employee's privacy or something to that effect. Doesn't mean the criminals are the good guys here, since they're trying to make bank on it instead of releasing it to the public -- if it's something that the public has an interest in.
I wouldn't be so sure of that assertion regarding attention span. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance granted, it's about opinion rather than capability but the same bias would explain such a reflexive judgment, and such a judgment will have negative consequences if it is false. (Consensus can be shaped, as can the perception of consensus be.)
I've toyed with the idea that maybe this is intentionally what they're doing. Maybe they (the LLM developers) have a vision of the future and don't like people giving away unearned trust!
Is this something that you would have done? I don't see how russia's survivability would be improved by expanding it's sphere of control, but, on the contrary it would stretch resources thin.