g42gregory

My main question is: Who funded this article and AI Institute who wrote it? Is this the team/investors behind Anthropic/OpenAI?

I think you are affording Anthropic way more benefit of the doubt than they deserve.

If you are trying to hack into a website, using a software tool (Claude Code in this case), you are breaking the law. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Claude Code or a text editor, you are the one responsible. And you are using a text editor in an “unsafe” manner. CC is not there to babysit anyone.

Ok, I just read the announcement word by word. There is a neaural accelerator in each GPU core. So presumably 64 vs 80 neural accelerators, with corresponding inference performance difference. It will make a difference for pre-fill.

How many Neural Accelerators does M5 Ultra has in its 64 vs 80-GPU variants?

Anybody knows?

Just to clarify, Neural Accelerators have nothing to do with Neural Engine.

I have really good experience with GLM-5.3 The subscription limits are generous, code quality is comparable to old (good) version of Opus 4.8 Some people report issues with it’s being slow, but I didn’t feel it. I use OMP harness (Pi derivative) and Matt Pocock skills.

By the dog owner analogy, I think you meant AI users that effectuated this attack should be held responsible, not the dog's parents.

I think he saying that, the choice of manufactured repository, might indicate that they have done this on purpose to make precisely the case for regulatory capture.

In my personal opinion, for me, this article defies common sense. Who unleashed this AI model on the repository? Who gave it malevolent instructions/prompt? These questions were not even attempted to be answered. Instead it talks about AI dangers, as if the agency of these models are not in dispute. Person wielding AI, as with any other tools, is responsible for all of its actions. Otherwise, it’s just a psyop for more AI regulation, ban open source, etc… Just my 2 cents.

If guarantee could be scaled down, it’s not a guarantee, is it? Expected guarantee, proposed guarantee, something along those lines. I think the point here is that the press has been presenting this as an iron-clad guarantee, while in reality, it’s not a guarantee at all.

They are busy implementing text watermarks.

I use OMP with Matt Pocock skills installed and it works great. Code quality is better and it uses less tokens. I didn't extend it much, but it certainly is very extendable.

Wait, first they stopped hiring because AI is going to replace everybody. Now they stopped hiring because AI, which was going to replace everybody, costs too much.

You can’t make this stuff up.

I may be wrong, but I think this could be traced to the Microsoft's increasing reliance on the outsourced engineering workforce. Regardless of the country it has been outsourced to, the quality of service will suffer, apparently greatly as we now see.

It seems to manifest in many places: AI slop, Github outages, recently Miscoroft sent me an email demanding that I subscribe to 365, in order for MS Office (which I already paid for) to continue to work. I simply moved on to the other, free, provider.

Perhaps, it's time to evaluate the use of the Microsoft products?

This looks very promising.

Yeah, I saw the same degradation. I will try the terminal threads that a poster below has mentioned. It sounds very interesting.

Looks like a great feature/product/functionality. I hope that Zed editor will make it work with LLMs/agents that run in the terminal, not just the Zen Agent itself. Is it even possible? I use OMP.sh agent running in Zed terminal.

With a very few exceptions, I don’t watch anything made past 2016. Not sure what happened in Hollywood then, but it’s just seems that they are constantly making some sort of public service messages that they need to pay me to watch. Not the other way around. That goes even if I agree with some of the messages.

Is there any reason to believe that this actually happened the way Anthropic describes it? The frontier labs seemingly trying to outdo each other: See how dangerous my model is? No, my models has been even worse. Quick, ban all Chinese open source!

As country getting closer to the Communism, people seem to take notice.

When they talk about everybody losing their jobs, that doesn’t bother them one bit. In fact, they seem to be truly happy when they talk about that. But this, Oh No!

The LLM will write, with proper care, a code that is correct for contribution. However, for the code quality (proper decomposition, etc...), I would not expect frontier models to write anything near that GCC-level coding standards would require.

Perhaps, the general public needs to formulate its position on Anthropic models...

If you are a Mathematician or Theoretical Physicist, you can come up with a theory of why LLMs even work in the first place. And what to do next, after LLMs.

Open-weights models will be downloaded from China and run on local/corporate-owned AI hardware. You would have to ban Internet access and AI hardware next.

Make no mistake: the only reason you are getting the Fable 5 on Max plans is the Chinese competition.

Without it, you would be paying $2,000/month (Sam Altman, circa 2023/24 when he was saying GPT-4 had IQ of 130).

China’s strategy seems to be serving customers’ needs. Yes, it’s winning, as expected.

And when will we stop equating US Economy with 2 companies?

The actual US Economy will only benefit.

As I recall, in 2023/24 OpenAI told US Gov that AGI will be achieved in 2026 and we will use this AGI to “dominate” China. Based on this, US Gov cut off China from all AI hardware. It looks like China got the message and this is the response.

Also, a little competition is good for everybody (especially US consumers), no?

The current system in healthcare hurts consumers. We certainly do not want the same system in AI.

Frontier AI is a business to be “the smartest guy in the room”. It will always be hyper competitive just because of that.

The fate of any individual frontier company is irrelevant. What matters is AI consumers, and broad accessibility of AI to those consumers. If one of the AI “frontiers” bites the dust, the next one will step right in.