Anthropic levels of slowness (pacing)?
1,526 karma · joined February 1, 2023
Via the API. The $200 OpenAI plan just got cut and most say general quotas got cut before that so for users on a plan the numbers might be different.
For long running tasks it is. That's what made Deepseek so cheap.
I never said. It's not about outright refuse. It's how to deliver better outcomes. It's not a win or lose situation. Don't treat it like that.
> If your boss says that he does not care about long term consequences and he want things done a certain way
As suggested in my previous comment it could be you didn't explain it well. If you say code quality they might not care. Say it will crash randomly and can't fix it then they might. There's some art to it.
> Your opinion on what you think he wants is legally irrelevant.
No it's not. So you're saying if you got told to do something illegal you'd also do it anyway? I doubt it. You need to at least cover your back and document it as such. I'd say termination is better than jail.
Blame the benchmarks game. They're optimizing for that and that's what those things are measuring.
That's always false. It's like people want their meals delivered fast. They say they don't care about taste or how it is done. Watch when they get sick or don't like it and the drama that happens.
People don't care until they do. They don't know what to care (in this case code quality) or say that because you're not explaining it. People also "gamble" and you take the blame. Long term impacts? Nah doesn't matter. Weeks later and things break -- what did you do?
It's not useful because the benchmarks often measure the wrong thing. They're here yapping about AGI and yet the benchmarks treat it like a trained dog. Fetch this. 100 points.
Each "problem" in these benchmarks likely has more than 1 solution that can be considered correct and even should be graded in many ways. Yet we see in many benchmarks higher effort (or thinking levels) don't help because the benchmark penalizes for doing "more" than what the answers asks for. So what did you ask for?
In human school you often get marks on the process and not just the end result. Thinking tokens have been cut. All we group on is things like cost, turns and time but not the what else.
You don't see Nvidia and AMD fighting every other month over the latest cards.
It's clearly been "dealt with" already. When it launched we had interesting gaps and definitely differences. Now every new release is "crushing it".
Nah, we'll just get the 4.0 Pro Preview.
Google was so hyped up early Gemini 3 era (only some months ago). And now dark horse? The TPU takeover almost crashed nvidia and everyone else.
They are if you follow Tibo on the resets.
Fable easily trips its safe guards. You can be 95% complete with the plan for it to trip and then lose it all. Anything is better than nothing.
Why? Written by does not mean designed by etc. There's a lot more to it.
Not really, in that you just work with different constraints.
Anthropic and US labs in general has maybe 100s to 1000s of GPUs per person to experiment. Zai and Chinese labs in general have 1-10.
The priorities are different.
It's what people know. Opus is just the common target.
> Smarter and cheaper than Luna xhigh, not as smart but less expensive than Luna max. Smashes deepseek v4 flash
The problem with this and DeepSWE is it goes for a very specific profile. I'm not convinced DeepSWE is any accurate in actual work. It's surely a different signal (compared to some that allow cheating) but it has its own issues, e.g. weak harness.
Luna is great at following instructions but bad instructions or anything not covered = death.
Deepseek is more analytical. Good for bug tracking.
GLM is a better all rounder in some ways. Better at creativity.
Zai is on another "export control" list outside the broader 1. Doesn't help.