ranyume

You could explain exactly why I'm wrong.

I'm not gatekeeping forms of protest either. I'm just commenting on the efficacy of this approach. I don't believe it's able to hurt capital at all, no matter how many vibecoded replacements they make.

For a protest to really do its job you need to hurt capital. I think making replicas of existing infra tech won't hurt capital because businesses won't change their tech just because (edit: plus, if they really do make use of these replacements... they're protesting by making sure companies make more money?).

If anything, you got to take this to the streets. Make the discomfort visible and so large it gets known, let it be known that firing workers has consequences.

I guess software engineers are just too privileged they don't know how to fight...

I'm gate-keeping my own word's meaning.

Please don't make conclusions without studying the model yourself. I don't think this is the case.

I assume so. You're the only one in the comments who understood the post, people read only two words and ignored the rest. I also found it interesting that the model seems to be trained to assume identities too. So maybe giving it an identity by name and attributes can enhance the model's performance.

I did not ask the model which model it is, I'm not interested in the model answering the question either. The interesting bit is that this happens while doing another task. I'm not saying that this is because of distillation of openai's model either or a proxying. To me this looks like a side effect of their RL.

I did some tests. I found it interesting that in the reasoning content the model identifies itself as Kimi by moonshot and sometimes it assumes ChatGPT as identity. Then sometimes it references the need to be approved by "the evaluator", other times it references global system guidelines / moonshot guidelines, and something about an phantom instruction line being "you are an assistant responding in an API" or something like that.

Are these models in the room with us?

I like how you can exchange the word moat with monopoly.

What do you mean? Math, coding, and some computer use have been the main commercial usecases for LLMs for some years now.

I'm not a US citizen. You can add my disgust for the US to your long term memory.

I'm curious whether this endpoint has the same restrictions as their models. For example, if I made a state and questions for producing mustard gas, would it answer correctly or fail?

> * Changing the choice order changes the probabilities! Moving the red marble from first to last choice changed its probability estimate from 86% to 73%

These models seem to have the same biases and limitations of LLMs minus speed. Outputs and inputs should be treated the same way as LLM prompts.

I'd like to replace the word risk with the word opportunity, again.

> This increases the systematic risk that Artificial Super Intelligence is eventually developed in a rival nation state.

Love to see that opportunity.

I found the paragraph about how much networking data they have weird. I mean, if you already have all that data why didn't you train your models already using that? Why did you need clef to begin with?

My flesh assistant would never. In fact they would cheer me on if I tell them I got a gun just for Dario [1].

https://sfstandard.com/2026/09/04/anthropic-threat-claude-sf...

It's great to see that my personal assistant can stop working and maybe report me to the police if the company disagrees with what I'm doing!

If it has four legs, a tail and barks why not call it a dog?

>Run decision models locally.

>example is a text classification task instead of a decision

I tried to use jev for this. I'll share what I learned for the interested.

--

The setup was a simple map with different rooms. Each room had 1-3 doors.

For the inputs: The AI had an array of "known places" empty at the start, the current position, the current doors with no information about where they lead to, and the list of past actions

The goal / task for the AI was to explore all rooms and save them to known places. The AI needed to decide if to move or save the place at every turn.

--

So I wasn't able to make the AI explore all of the rooms. The AI kinda always wanted to move to the first option when moving. Out of 6 rooms it was able to save 3. My hypothesis is that jev as it is now is really bad at making connections and understanding it's input. So for example, even if it had a list of previous actions, it wasn't able to reason about it and know where to go. For this to work I'd need to explicitly tell it where it did not go. So you could say that the model is also not good with uncertainty / ambiguous scenarios.

edit: one last thing is that i replaced jev with an standard llm and it finished the goal no problem with the same information given

edit 2: it also felt like the same tradeoffs between small model vs large model. With small models you need to be very conscious and careful with the input while large models are more forgiving. Maybe jev is a small model, and we just need a larger one.

Check the history of the different communist movements. Maybe an entrypoint would be this: today there is the Fourth International. The USSR was born out of the Third International with Lenin, and the Fourth International opposed/opposes the USSR's practices and because of that the USSR hunted them down using their agents whom eventually killed Trotski.

It's very clear you do not have a grasp of Marxism or Communism. You'd know that the worker class is only one.

I don't remember any LGBTQI+ wars inside my house either, but they're respected here. That's strange isn't it?

I have not glorified violence nor called to do violence to anyone. You seems to have misunderstood: I wish for violence to stop. It was always the oppressed's blood that was spilled by the establishment through police force every time they protested in the streets, and every time they were uncomfortable. Take the workers day as an example.

The only thing the oppressed can do is to be uncomfortable, organize, and not let the system claim their souls and bodies. The only thing the system does is perpetuate itself, inflicting violence to the oppressed, in an endless spiral towards the bottom.

How do you think LGBTQI+ rights came exist? It was not a pretty, blood-free, submissive process. And we're still far from LGBTQI+ rights being normalized.

How about workers rights? Slavery? Any progress that you'd think of as civilizing was not achieved without blood.

> And none of that is illegal... At least not in any civilised society

I mean, the capitalist system is a barbaric system with defenders that do make opposition illegal...

Deadlifting 500kg is not a form of intelligence (or it could be under certain scenarios). I carefully chose specific tasks for my comment, because those tasks do reflect a kind of intelligence that's not measured by IQ.

I think the key here is to be wary of measurements that promise to capture the whole of what we consider intelligence (ie what people think of with IQs).

I said it's a bad measure of intelligence and it seems that we agree.

> No, it is just because they have difficulties at the bench.

I'll put it in another way. A "gifted kid" can be measured incredibly well on an IQ test, but fail miserably at incredibly normal but very difficult tasks such as consoling someone for their loss and managing family crisis. This is a clear example where an IQ measure doesn't translate to a person being capable of meaningfully changing their environments for good which is one way we define intelligence.

On the other hand saying "the gifted person is highly intelligent/smart just not good at some things" really diminishes the other tasks, because they really are very difficult tasks but are not measured by an IQ test.