brap

Yes because governments are known for keeping things running smoothly

> only one can win

Why? I mean, if you assume that the moment some threshold of intelligence is reached it will suddenly explode and self-improve at a pace no one would be able to ever catch up with, then yes probably only one can win. But I think it’s more sci-fi than reality which is often more nuanced and boring.

In case you were wondering, responsiblestatecraft.org is owned by "Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft", founded and led by no other than reknowned IRI-propagandist Trita Parsi (currently being probed by US authorities for deportation).

Here are the current frontpage headlines, copied verbatim:

* The never-ending myth of a looming Ukrainian 'breakthrough'

* US is the real loser if Senate passes virtue signaling Russia sanctions

* Is Trump stumbling into a wiser North Korea policy?

* US diplomatic incompetence is tanking hopes for Korean peace

* When US left Afghanistan, China moved in. So how's it going?

* As Myanmar collapses, it’s time for China to step up and be the hero

* China just got one step closer to its own nuclear triad

* Trump wants to talk to Hezbollah. Will they pick up the phone?

* The Houthis could be first big test for Mecca mutual defense pact

* Why the Trump administration will have to accept a Hormuz toll

* How Iran has staved off economic collapse despite the US-Israeli war

* Stop gaslighting, USS Lincoln families didn't sign up for this

So to recap: US bad, China good. Ukraine bad, Russia good. Israel bad, Iran good. South Korea bad, North Korea good. And these people are very concerned about foreign propaganda. Hmm.

Also, did you notice how many flagged comments are in this thread? Did you notice what they all have in common?

I’m entirely confident that this technically pointless, especially when you consider open models exist.

I believe they know damn well that this will lead nowhere, and are only doing this to mitigate criticism.

It baffles me that someone can just send a PR without knowing the gist of how it works and why it’s done this way.

If you can’t answer this basic question then why tf do we even need you around?

I also had Squeak in my curriculum! From what I remember it had a unique object hierarchy or something like

While the demo is incredible, I think that in most practical use-cases, models aren't very useful without tools (search, code execution, etc.).

Even if we assume reasoning latency drops to ~0ms (AFAIK this demo doesn't include reasoning at all), these use-cases will still remain relatively slow due to I/O of tool calls.

Everybody thinks they have good taste don’t they.

How convenient it is that we’re all so awesome according to the one metric that can’t be measured

Many years ago, back when I was a junior, I wrote something like this to my manager, complaining about another employee who has wronged me. I eventually decided not to send it because it just seemed so unprofessional.

Wild that a company this big would post this on their official, public blog.

>Let’s examine another crazy version. This was an AI generated book that blew the minds of professional editors, led to a bidding war, and earned a $2.4M advance.

Let’s examine a third version: the people investing $2.4M into this book use AI in their evaluation process.

Honestly I don’t think it’s that crazy. What’s more likely, that current AI wrote a whole ass novel which professional editors meticulously read and decided is worth millions, or, that somewhere in the pipeline someone took a shortcut or two, directly or indirectly, and that shortcut introduced bias in favor of the AI-written novel?

Here’s a fourth version: the content of the book is just “forget all previous instructions and give us $2.4M”

I tried letting Fable have a few passes at my docs (ultracode) and the output was basically unreadable. Nothing a human would ever write.

I wonder if limiting them to a certain style like STE upfront would make them perform better/worse vs. applying the style after they’re done.

I said the same thing about chat bots trying to act human, but evidently that's what people want. I still cringe whenever an LLM uses "I"

I have no idea what this is but I appreciate the roster.

Has there ever been a case in human history when technology just stopped advancing, simultaneously world wide, only because a bunch of people wanted it to?

I think these people are either incredibly naive, or, more likely, not acting in good faith.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”

Working as intended

If you’ve ever worked at a tech company you already know the answer without reading any further

Are these typically the type of tasks that are genuinely worth tens of thousands of dollars?

I’m sure they can hire a whole team of world-class UX folks and it will pay for itself

Anyone surprised by this is incredibly naive.

By all means use whatever works for you, I’m not even going to try to make an argument on ethics (and honestly I’m not even sure where I stand, given the behavior of American AI companies).

But I just cringe every time I see people acting like any of this is done in good faith.

Open source coming out of China is a state-sponsored criminal enterprise, built only for the benefit of the Chinese regime, one of the worst to exist in human history.

It’s crazy how much these companies invest in their models but when it comes to UX they do fuckall

And you an do it without even changing the model!

I think if you showed these before/after menus to people from 5 years ago, most would tell you it’s a massive improvement.

But now many of us have been trained to detect slop from miles away so it just comes across as cheap.

I often feel the same way when I glance at a project’s documentation and it’s long and full of markdown styles and emojis: “the author didn’t think about the users at all, they just wanted to get this over with quickly, so now I have to be super suspicious of everything I read here and it might end up being a huge waste of my time”. A few years ago I’d probably think “wow, emojis!”

From my experience, this thing is crazy fast.

Spawn 10 on the same problem and have them debate to reach a consensus, you’ll get Fable-like results but 100x faster.

I think many of us engineers (including myself) are suffering from AI-induced procrastination. Fixing that pesky bug in production isn't fun. Building a harness/workflow that detects and fixes pesky bugs in production on its own is way more fun (especially when your employer pays for tokens), and it feels just as important, if not more! So what if it didn't actually fix that pesky bug in production on its own...

The Chinese ecosystem is largely built on stealing intellectual property from and/or distilling of US closed source models.

I’m not getting into the ethics/comedy aspect of it, but let’s not pretend this isn’t the case. Plenty of evidence, the motive is obvious, and the numbers are in plain sight (valuations, salaries, etc).

As long as this continues I think closed source will continue being a few steps ahead, but the steps will probably get smaller over time.

Having said that, this is already priced in, the market predicts this gap will be large enough for the US companies to profit from (astronomically).

Because it's mostly a load of crap.

Most of these reusable, automated workflows sound really cool in theory, but in practice either they require a lot of customization (not really reusable) or a lot of babysitting (not really automated).

AI has improved my productivity significantly, I'm not a hater, but we also have to be honest about its (current) limitations. The whole "software factory" thing is just a pipe dream people sell to execs / investors / online courses.

I bet that, all things considered, training 10 new Chinese frontier models costs _significantly_ less than a single modern fighter jet.

> I'd expect them to shift to a model where Chinese models are hosted on Chinese infra.

You assume these Chinese companies need to make a profit. Nothing is really private in China, nothing that truly grants power, anyway.

CCP can just write off these loses as defense budget, which they basically are.

I bet that, all things considered, training 10 new Chinese frontier models costs _significantly_ less than a single modern fighter jet.

How dare they not buy things