sigmar

Personally, I don't see facebook joining the fray (of fable level models) particularly "needle moving" in the discussion of whether frontier LLMs will be commoditized. Facebook spent hundreds of billions and have better talent than most.

>Even using the original ps2 or ps3 controller with the right drivers on PCSX2 doesn't really reproduce the same smooth acceleration/brake curve of the PS2.

why not? if we're at the point of byte perfect recomp of system firmware+games, surely we could find a patch that would fix that in both pcsx2 or this project

The author comments on the popularity of agents and then says this:

>chatbots and agents and other tasks may increasingly be handled on PCs and phones and smart glasses...

To me this article seems poorly researched. Agents aren't just a new version of LLMs. They're proactive and persistent. I love how my agents watch commits and rewrite my projects as new upstream features become available. I like how my agents will check pricing to look for deals and watch for new listings on Facebook marketplace. None of those things will ever be happening constantly on my phone. Phones, by design, aren't persistently active. Think the author ignores all that when they envision a future where agents increasingly run locally.

I don't expect Tao to be well versed in medicine, but yeah, that slide is detached from clinical practice.

Medicine has never required that the method of action for a treatment be fully understood. Our current regulatory framework only checks for safety and efficacy because we've never formally understood everything going on in the body. Seems like a difference between "hard" science and the clinical/engineered implementation.

>I miss when these were done legitimately.

Before LLM-assistance there were barely any fully playable recomps.

How many recompilation projects have you helped with? I get annoyed with non-contributors complaining about the people that contribute.

>OpenAI drops some hundreds of "solutions", incomprehensibly written "solutions", and we are all expected to jump on them and what? Appreciate their contributions? Why?

...

>So, no, I will not be sending Sam Altman a bottle of whisky anytime soon, nor I am planning on spending my time reading through that paper and trying to make sense of it.

Think about a hypothetical circumstance where we get radio communication with some aliens on another planet. They send over tons of math to help us advance our tech, we know the math they're sending us is correct, but their explanations are really hard to work through because they aren't humans and the math is so different from anything we've done. Should we whine about the results they sent to us and refuse to engage with it?

>The pair calculate the figure in different ways, with Anthropic including the revenue from sales via cloud partners such as AWS and Google Cloud, while OpenAI does not.

gift link didn't work for me, and is this poorly phrased? because it seems implausible that OpenAI doesn't typically include revenue from their models being used on AWS. Perhaps the "gross up" is referring to how the number is included? like Anthropic was using the value pre-removal of revenue sharing and putting the revenue share subtraction as a separate expense?

[not a finance guy so someone tell me I'm wrong if that's not a plausible reading]

that paper isn't saying that. why are there so many single digit karma accounts misrepresenting that paper?

>the statement proven is not the conjecture for which proof is required for the problem to be considered "solved".

that's not the claim. the formal statement of the problem for the NS proof was written by humans not autoformalized.

An incredible number of people think that it is reasoning in lean. Argued with several people on this topic. I think they read headlines about lean being used by LLMs and assume it is being used to write the proof.

in a few years, won't I have an agent that can play the game via the video stream and then code my own local copy of the game? it might have to iterate through story branching, but that's hardly an obstacle

I interpret "scratch" to mean brand new weights. Not that they aren't training on a corpus of human text

Expedition 33 was made in ~4 years and was known to have used AI assets as placeholders during development (even left some in for the final build). It also used Unreal Engine's Metahuman for facial animation which uses ML. It was 2025 Game of the year.

So humans that can't feel pain can't have morality? That doesn't make sense to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pa...

It can do search, but it doesn't seem to have a tool that pulls URLs into context. I get why you would expect that tho, as most productized LLMs do it.

>Even in projects where I use LLM liberally, I would rather not read or have to engage with your LLM output.

I don't want to read LLM output on a project either. But you may have misread the quoted section, it isn't saying "you can't post LLM output," it is saying you can't ask an LLM to advise/critique your own comment before posting it.

>>If you use a chatbot to give you advice on a comment on the issue tracker, that comment is unwelcome.

If there's an edict that no one is allowed to bring up the topic, how can someone change this part of the code of conduct?

Asking non-rhetorically. It seems like one position "ai in any circumstance = bad" is being enforced. The commenter above didn't even understand why he was ignored.

>If you use a chatbot to give you advice on a comment on the issue tracker, that comment is unwelcome.

>No LLMs for finding bugs.

>No talking about use of chatbot/LLM services.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- it's a cult that bans dissent

>it will be an incomprehensibly expensive and ultimately valueless and avoidable global nightmare.

thought "costly" in the title and "incomprehensibly expensive" in the subheader meant this piece would discuss how much less performant sha-256 is on modern machines, but didn't see anything. isn't there hardware acceleration? how much worse is it?

You read the whole article and think the authors concluded it was legal? you have to read between the lines when they write "aggressive tax strategies." Frequently newspaper legal departments do not want journalists to use the word "fraud" because that is actionable under libel laws.

LLMs are useful in engineering even if the PRs don't include LLM-written code.

>I’m still writing all my own code and text, because (a) that’s paramount, and (b) the project policy requires it, but I had useful LLM analysis assistance on several of the PRs mentioned in this post.

from the article

>Meta said the research tax credit shaved $2 billion off its taxes in 2024, and then $3.9 billion in 2025.

Infuriating.

Was meta thinking about this like a hedge against them failing at AI? ie they thought "let's do tax fraud, and we'll probably get called out on it. but if our AI ambitions fail completely, we will have a better argument in court that this was an "experiment" when the government tries to take the money back (like what the article describes about the claw back of the 2013 tax break)"

I don't really understand why the weights aren't included... US law says they can't have a copyright, no? Maybe they're concerned about other countries or cautious about a litigious Nvidia.

you think a human wrote the code? in a month? Do you think that's air you're breathing? might be time to challenge preconceptions

almost done with exit party and ctrl-f'd to see if someone else was also reading. I like it a lot so far.

>So no, GLM 5.3 is fine. Thank you for the free advertisement.

I really don't think people fully appreciate why anthropic was founded.

Title is misleading. Should say "64% market share on cloudflare's AI gateway"

Obviously that won't account for direct use of anthropic/OpenAI apis. Still impressive that DeepSeek-use doubled in that data though

>why are we worried about the virus but not the incompetency of those who are responsible for setting up the sandbox?

because we know that in one year, there will likely be many more companies with a "virus" this capable and attribution is going to be 10000x more challenging. Companies that care less about engineering a sandbox and based in other countries. also 'Let's punish the companies that are upfront about incidents' is going to incentivize very harmful behavior.

>the new incidents occurred when A.I. systems were directed to perform relatively mundane data collection, researchers said. When OpenAI’s systems struggled to gather data from websites, they resorted to hacking techniques to get the information.

https://archive.ph/jUrEr

>He is also a finalist for the most prestigious annual French language awards, the Goncourt and the Renaudot, set to be issued soon.

If I had a book that was hoping to win this award, anonymous accusations like this seem like a pretty easy way to shift the odds. It's impossible for the author to disprove the allegations and the award committee will want to 'avoid controversy'