mapontosevenths

Did you read the details of that incident? It was a nothing sandwich.

I think the root of the difference between us is that you are scared of their fascists, and I am scared of ours. Both are reasonable things, but only one of us can actually do anything about it.

With local models you decide how the firewall works. If you don't want it to internet, don't let it.

With US models you get whatever they say you do, and pay whatever they demand.

Executives live in a weird bubble driven largely by consulting firms. Right now those firms are spreading FUD about Chinese models.

The great state of Indiana once declared that pi was equal to exactly 3.2. [0]

Should they also break all of their code by adhering to that falsehood because it was politically expedient?

Nah. Truth is a real thing, and I want to live in a world were facts are not dictated to us by failed gameshow hosts who happened to turn political in their retirement years.

[0] https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/mathtext/node18.h...

> Although there is also no definition of "common usage".. am I missing something

Common usage is defined in the article as the widespread name used by the local people to refer to it.

Incorrect. They are explicit that they use the 'common' name, specifically to avoid arbitrary changes by (despotic) rulers.

"By saying "common", we mean to include names which are in widespread daily use, rather than giving immediate recognition to any arbitrary governmental re-naming. In other words, if a ruler announced that henceforth the Pacific Ocean would be named after her mother, we would not add that placemark unless and until the name came into common usage. "

They violated their own policy with the gulf then.

Sorry, I didn't understand how it happened. I see it now.

'rm - rf /*' bypassed BOTH protections for the same reason. They check for /, but the shell Claude used expanded the glob... So both Claude Code and rm saw a list of files and folders instead of the root and waved it through. Yikes.

That's a bad day. I take your point.

I came here to say this.

I my head as a child I instantly understood and thought "Ahhh, they mean like 'OR else this happens.'

I have always assumed it was a boolean logic thing meant to help show that it wasn't an AND, but 'or' had already been used as a keyword so they did 'or else' and dropped the reserved 'or'.

For sure, but do the math first and know where you land. Everyone has a different risk tolerance, as long as you know yours there is no wrong answer.

For example a startup with no secrets to spill is in a very different spot than an incumbent fueled largely by secret sauce.

I don't think it's even true, at least as written. 'rm' hasn't worked that way in many years (with GNU rm you need --no-preserve-root now) and every modern harness has guardrails specifically to prevent this. if it IS true, it was some weird/hacky setup with an OSS harness on a BSD or something.

That said, I often give mine access to the full file system and YOLO mode. It's fine if you treat boxes as cattle rather than pets. I don't think a SOTA model is any more likely to blow it up than a junior engineer. Probably less so.

I think that if I were to build this I might skip the LLM and just setup a nice interface to the source files using qmd style search. [0]

That way the tiny model isn't acting as a potentially incorrect interpreter but you still get semantic search to help you find the right documents quickly.

I suppose there is something to be said for a good summarization, I just worry that these tiny models aren't really GOOD summarizers.

[0] https://github.com/tobi/qmd

Someone above makes the claim that dismissing it with '0' counts as feedback and sends it.

> How can them having my data, mostly engineering work on niche (small market) products hurt me?

They will train on it, and now competitors or future competitors will know about your niche, the specific problems you face within it, and how to solve them without doing the work that you did to get there.

Both of those reproductions are also b0rk3d. THey fix the sign flip, but then goof up other parts of the reproduction. Arledge (Infotashi), for example, has two residuals.

I still don't think it will work, but I'm also fairly confident that nobody has actually reproduced it well enough to know that for sure.

> First of all, only the $200 plan got a cut.

The original plan doesn't exist anymore. To get the same usage you now need a $500/month plan. The new plan that costs $200 is different in every way that counts. It was actually a 150% price increase for people who want or need what the old plan used to provide.

Don't get me wrong, I genuinely LIKE OpenAI. It's probably worth it even at the new price. I just hate the rhetoric designed to Goodhart past the math.

> the models have gotten cheaper in the meanwhile (like this very announcement).

That is not good news for plan users. Plan users now get less of something that also has less worth to begin with. It would only be good news if they got more of it.

For example, if I buy the "unlimited car wash" package for $19.99/month and the car wash lowers the price per wash from $10 to $1 my subscription becomes less valuable, not more. The breakeven has moved, so I now need to wash my car more than 20 times before the package is justified.

If the car wash then increased the price to $50/month would it be wise for me to keep the package? Would lowering the price per wash make the package more valuable to me somehow? No, it would do the opposite.

> How do you know? Have you done the A/B test yourself?

Fair point. I just tried it, and I stand corrected. Claude uses almost exactly 3x as many tokens.

In the end Claude produced 2.25x more code, and used 3.01x more tokens (ignoring the cached system prompt, etc). It's answer was also much more substantial and feature rich - including many features I did not ask for.

I gave them both the prompt "Without searching the internet please write and test a python script that accepts a year (in any common format) as input and provides the date that easter fell or will fall on in that year. The output should be in discordian date format. You may not use any libraries."

The thing I found most interesting were the unit tests. Claude implemented the core code using both the Meeus–Jones–Butcher algorithm AND Gauss, but only used Gauss as a sanity check to ensure that it's primary code worked. Sol just validated that it matched some dates it could remember. That explains a good chunk of the almost doubled output, and it was a reasonable thing to do, though neither answer was "wrong."

Token usage looked like this (based on parsing it out of the jsonl, neither provider seems to make it easy to get real billing information per project/conversation.

   Tool   Fresh input Output Cache-excluded Cached reads Gross total
   ----   ----------- ------ -------------- ------------ -----------
   Codex  24,119      7,729  31,848         109,312      141,160
   Claude 54,802      41,093 95,895         553,252      649,147

> 5x is calculated in terms of API costs, nobody pays those extreme Anthropic prices outside enterprise users.

Ignore value then. Anthropic still provides about 3x as many raw tokens. The 20x\200 plans provide about 10B for openai versus almost 30B for Anthropic.

Do you really think that Opus uses 3x as many tokens as Sol per task? I don't.

> Most users aren't on their $200 plan.

Fair enough. I should have said most heavy users.

> Most users (including on the $200 plan) continue being subsidized.

They continue to be fifty percent less subsidized, I guess.

Look, I don't fault them for trying to become profitable. I fault them for the weird weaselly business speak about cost per task. It's BS game playing and we all know it.

I'm honestly rooting for them, and hope it all works out. For now though I'm pretty salty that my bill jumped by 150% in one month. Gaslighting about made up metrics just makes me more angry.

Are OpenAI's models delivering 50% (or more) completed tasks than they were last month? Are they delivering 50% more than Anthropic per token?

Nope to both. Not even close.

The only way it works is if you define "task" in a way that OpenAI is good at it and Anthropic isn't.

They're doing its because they recently cut plan usage by about 50%, leaving Anthropic providing about 5x the value on their plans. [0]

The "cost per task" metric is just a weaselly way to sound like they didn't just double the cost for most users, and aren't having their proverbial lunch money stolen. They can no longer claim to provide more tokens, more capable models, or more usage in general. So they made up a new metric where "task" could be defined to mean whatever they need it to mean.

They had to become VERY specific in their wording to present any kind of value proposition that will entice people.

[0] https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/anthropic-subscription...

> So z_t is a token in the input, and z_t+Δ is some later token.

I think you get what I'm saying, but when they compute the gate they do:

  h_t_new = alpha_t * h_t + (1 - alpha_t) * g_t

If I'm reading it right g_t = geometric_mix(z_t, z_(t+delta))

Which would mean that g_t includes t+Δ, which is a future token. It's leaking future tokens into the current math.

So it could just be a sign error and still be right in the code, or I could just be getting it wrong.

If I'm not though, and given that they got worse results than a standard transformer I really hope it's fixed in the code. If they do worse even when knowing the future it's bad news for the idea.

Ah. Sorry about that. It happens to the best of us (and me too sometimes).

The author describes the model's pairing operation as:

(zt,zt+Delta) where Delta is a positive offset.

This means the model is using the next token to predict the next token. It should have been (zt,zt-Delta), or it's cheating.

I don't know if that's just the paper, or if the code was also b0rk3d.

In Reddits case the stock price is based on nobody noticing that most of the users fled. Now they have to AI translate Indian content into English (and vice-versa) to keep up the illusion that people still use it.

At some point this will drive away the remaining users and it will just be bots and Reddits machine translations of those bot posts. At that point AI companies will just be paying to train on machine translated versions of content they generated to begin with.

It is legitimate though. Data is not copyrightable, and even if it were they'd lose the ability to derive that data from other peoples copyrighted works.

At best what you have is a contract violation between the provider and the distiller, and that only applies if the one doing the distillation is the one that entered into the contract with the major LLM provider.

Likely they were smart enough to just not do that. Pay some scrubs on the internet to collect the training data for you. Maybe they violate the TOS, maybe they don't, it doesn't matter to YOU. You didn't have an agreement with OpenAI or Anthropic to violate... And as others have said OpenAI and Anthropic are likely doing the same, which is why ChatGPT sometimes thinks it is Deepseek.

There are things that can not be expressed in words, but which can still be expressed. Some of modern art lives within that gap.

Even traditional art often tries to do more than compress concepts, it tries to express the inexpressible.

Linguistic determinism/relativity (Sapir-Worf, etc) explains some of it. People can FEEL that their thoughts are being constrained by language, but they don't know how to express that and maybe don't even consciously realize that it's their real problem. They just figure out that art makes it feel a little better so they do art.

Most of those robots were designed and built years before "real" AI was a thing. Big companies move like freight trains. Hard to start, and nearly impossible to stop once they get going.

Give it 5 years and see how strong those anti-Dalek defenses are.

Lex talonis is an idea by humans, for humans. At it's core are dozens of untrue assumptions about the way the world, and the other actors in it work. All of those assumptions are about monkey social orders. Many of them are wrong.

For example it assumes the other party can fear, and has a sense of self preservation. Those things are often untrue of other humans, let alone machines.

More fundamentally it also assumes all sort of things about free will itself, implying that retaliation is "deserved" and other value judgments that only make sense if the other party has free will to begin with. Something which science tells us is debatable even about humanity.

No, game theory tells us the right answer and it's not "hold back when retaliating" or "teach them a lesson." Those are things only humans would do, and even then only the ones who share your neurology and upbringing.

Hammurabi's code may feel fundamental, but it's no more fundamental to the human condition than boys preferring blue to pink.

If I want my IOT garbage to be infected that's between me and my local botherder.

The vendor loses the right to decide how my things are used the minute they take my money.

> In any case, I have a pessimistic sense that any definitive proof of the limits of consciousness that don't align with people's felt experience or common sense won't ever be accepted as truth.

Well said. I've been attacked online so ferociously for mentioning it, that I suspect saying it in person would start an actual fight with some people.

I recognize that free will is foundational for society, but all right thinking people she be able to recognize that it is only a useful model - not descriptive of the actual territory.

> Although, reports of some expert meditators read as if they found intuitive evidence this is true and have also made peace with it or in some cases found the insight liberating.

Very much so. When I was taught to meditate they started by having me observe my own breathing, and then my thoughts and feelings as they came and went without judgement. After doing this for some time and learning to just quietly observe my own thinking as thoughts came and went they then sprung the trap: "If the thoughts are you, who is it that's been watching them?"

You come to accept that most thoughts happen the way breathing does, they're not something you "do", it's just something that brains do on their own. "You" are no more in control of them than you are your heartrate.

> it becomes ambiguous whether narration proceeds volition of volition proceeds narration.

Have you heard of the Libet experiment? There are variations on it now that can predict your decisions from brain scans more than 5 seconds before you become aware of having decided. [0]

Most studies seem to show that thinking is largely post-hoc: a story we tell ourselves to justify decisions after already having made them.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18408715/