make3

don't call it a bug, they were intentionally aggressively pushing marketing copy into people's commits.

this was malice or greed

"I should vote for Hitler, at least he's open about his villainy", such nonsense argument. People can have ethics, that's a real thing.

this assumes you're not giving anything away by doing things the old way. but you're giving away AI competency, the ability to compete with your peers at your job etc.

If you use a state of the art search tool and give it enough information, which you should, it should be very competent at that honestly, because it can read hundreds of papers and articles. I don't think your exemple is true. You would need statistics and benchmarks, not a made up strawman.

I think that comments like this are not helpful for humanism.

Us pogressives should stop trying to argue that AI actually sucks, it obviously doesn't and will continue to improve.

We would start organizing and thinking about ways to build a society where the average human can still have a solid, interesting quality of life even when solid AI is everywhere.

I'm sorry but AI generalizes on various takeaway sets of reasoning benchmarks about a variety of subjects, and if you ask it complex philosophical questions in an argumentative back and forth, it does really pretty well most of the time.

I'm progressive, but this is just not helpful. Progressives should focus less on trying to argue that AI sucks actually (it obviously doesn't), we should focus on thinking about how to transform society to still protect human quality of life and dignity even when strong AI exists.

You're delusional if you're implying that thinking AI is a threat to the existence of the middle class is coocoo.

The actual progressive thing to do is to accept that it is, and think of how to build the world in a way that protects people.

also, it was true that people could be retrained, so their point was less serious.

That won't be the case when AI can do almost every white collar jobs.

no one pragmatic, realistic and grounded who uses the tools regularly thinks that "the death of AI" contingency is something worth planning your career around

I'm still not switching after Altman jumped on the cyberpunk totalitarian contract with the government

The seller of the code has no visibility on the training set of the LLM. If the situation you're describing ends up being illegal, responsibility should fall on the LLM provider to provide tools to detect such overlap with their training sets, and on the clients to run the tools.

The provider of the LLM should want to enable this and to take on that responsibility (I mean take it from the clients), otherwise no one will want to use the tool. Maybe there could be AI tool-use lawsuit insurance, but I feel like that's worse than the copyright infringement detection tool for everyone involved.

I can see the tool happening in the EU, but nowhere else basically, especially in the US, the government sees "AI dominance" as a national priority and a national security priority.

he meant that that's not the primary concern. the sourcing of the data is a red herring, they care about losing their ability to make a living doing the thing that they love that is so central to their identity

The transformer paper was 9 years ago. 9 years between barely translating alright between two very closely related languages (English and French, huge fraction of shared words because of William the conqueror and cultural proximity etc etc) and what we have now.

The thing is able to code up full pretty competent thousand lines projects in an hour. Even hardcore engineers use it now, as of this year. My senior front end friends already can't find jobs.

You're crazy if you think things won't change dramatically, at the scale of all of society.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

This is a very first degree analysis.

AI is seen as an oppressor and a threat, and AI providers are seen as oppressors. It's understandable that people don't want to collaborate with their oppressors, either direct or by association. If you were a Jew, would you buy shoes from the Nazis just because you were individually safe from them at that moment? Or would you if you were of a minority they hadn't started exterminating yet? Or if they were not exactly the Nazis killing your people but some affiliated group?

This sounds extreme until you realize they are under threat of losing their likelihood for good.

They are right to not accept your inevitability point without a fight, this is a human thing that can be fought, revolutions have happened, and will continue to happen.

I don't necessarily agree with this but I do understand it.

Say that again in five years when you can't find a job except mega yatch toilet cleaner because Claude is distinguished engineer level for one millionth of your cost and thousands of times faster, and can be instantly parallelized in the tens or hundreds of thousands just to be spun down arbitrarily as needed at any time

There is no acceptable use of AI for most people in the artistic field. They see it as an extreme treason, and I understand. They're under incredible incredible threat.

They are conscious of preventing momentum in a bad direction.

If they don't fight it hyper hard, a huge fraction of them will be out of a job instantly.

and a countable infinity of other invisible smaller ones!!

this made no sense btw, this would give 4/3

it's a binary search, not too surprising. search over a unidimensional ordered space

With things like the latest dlss (extremely high quality run time .. reinterpretation), I wonder how precise mesh etc has to be now.

1. extract even a super approximate (meaning, like square edges, with some visual details) mesh from gen ai or a scan as a starting point,

2. move things around and define volumes for gameplay needs,

3. name things ("this is a Victorian house in a surprisingly good condition compared to the neighborhood it's in"), have human guided gen ai polish the things a bit more from the labels within the bounds of the gameplay required volumes,

4. let run time dlss fix the lighting etc from the rough geometry

I wonder how computationally expensive it would be to add ray tracing for the non splat surfaces (not even mutually)

look at step 2 about streamed splats

I had to write multiple times in my prompt that it's not the model's role to change the subject or end the conversation at all.

I think that they do that to dodge conversations about controversial subjects without full-on refusing to answer. They'll give you an ok answer then tell you to go to get the walk you were talking about.

I also feel like maybe they think people are still ready to pay a lot if they feel like they're getting a lot of "high value stuff" even if the low value stuff the model refuses to do, so they basically try to stop you from doing low value stuff on Opus. I suspect that Sonnet or Haiku never tells you to go take a hike.

there's things like Open Web UI that allow you to easily get a chat UI from an open source model

The pass@100 is such a weird critique angle that is surprisingly mainstream; guess what, no one cares if the correct answer is in the top 100, it needs to be the top 1. A model with a better answer in the top 1 is a better model, full stop.

for people with medium to high anxiety problems and/or with ADHD, exams are an absolute nightmare that is not representative at all of workplace performance or ability to do good work.

I'm not sure of if typewriters help for assignments. People will just rewrite what the AI wrote

I did, what's your point?

if you look at the details of the numbers of the benchmarks that you shared, Sonnet 4.5 crushes gemma 4. Somehow the first link doesn't run Sonnet on the multi modal benchmark, that's why the top score looks close, it beats Gemma at every benchmark they actually ran. The arena in the second shows that it actually destroys Gemma 4 as well, not close

absolutely not on par you're smoking