suddenlybananas

This doesn't really make sense. If you have the specific questions of an exam in advance and study those, then your final score on the exam isn't really representative.

It's because he's being an asshole.

If you've been accused of cheating it is a very different scenario.

>Every developer needs to experience this particular flavor of ego death. Me, you, everybody.

You seem like a deeply unpleasant person.

Oh I completely agree! I think it's mostly just that if they truly had perfect AGI, it would be odd to sell it so cheaply.

But those all need expertise and openAI and anthropic are claiming to be selling expertise in anything.

But you can make the branch public without committing to maintaining an experimental branch, this doesn't make sense.

Why though?

It's really a nitpick but putting a big, obvious AI generated slop photo at the top of your post is a signal for bad quality content. I would recommend to avoid doing it.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that that score is accurate?

Why on earth should they be the arbitrer? Do people in SF understand how much the rest of the world despises them with this attitude?

I think people can't stand anthropic's pseudo humanism, it comes across as lying and fake. Altman and Zucc don't pretend to be heroes

Why waste so much space on a chart on whether "human experts preferred distributed-agent reports over single-agent reports"? I thought we were supposed to be curing alzheimer's and cancer!

>asset owners

Why do you think those assets are valuable?

>How many high-paying jobs today actually do anything that benefits the 'common man'?

I agree there's a lot of inequality and ridiculous pointless jobs, but the average person (in the developed world) still has access to a cornucopia of goods and services which they purchase.

An economy needs demand, it's not just dead capital.

>If our economy comes to rely on RSI-enabled AI, most people will simply have no place in any industry it touches.

Then there will be no economy. If anything, if we reach this level of economic automation, more people will have to find ways to occupy themselves and sparking joy through math might be the best way to go about it for some.

This is so fundamentally divorced from what we know about cognition in humans or in animals. The idea that we are a pure tabula rasa and only shaped by our "training data" is absurd and false. Just look at the amount of data we need to be able to do things relative to ML models. Look at animals which can do complex tasks moments after birth. We're deeply, deeply shaped by instinct.

Why are people so upset about this? It's an interesting way of bringing about a failure case in LLMs, that's interesting no?

I'd rather have bike lines :(

More fixes could of course be downstream from more bugs

Are you saying that sampling bias is a fallacy?

The entire comment? Do you think it's plausible that we will be able to explain space travel to whales?

Have you ever heard of Clever Hans?

Nicaraguan sign language is evidence for an innate language capacity, not that it is an invented technology and certainly not evidence for Sapir Whorf.

Norwegians, Danes, Swedes and Finns all use a different currency. Finns and Sicilians do share a currency though, but all these countries have different immigration policies and regulations. I don't think you really know how the EU works.

>If Opus 13.5 can one-shot a profitable company

No company would ever release such a thing

My whole point is what we could communicate would be profoundly limited. It's like how we can communicate with dogs to a certain extent, but we're not telling them bedtime stories. The comment I responded to originally is fantasising an absurd degree of complexity in communication which is profoundly unrealistic.

I think you are very naïve about how complicated language is. I'm not saying animals lack any intelligence whatsoever, but I don't see how remembering faces means you'll be able to talk. The crows could just have acted hostile to the masked people in front of each other. Communicating is not the same thing as language which is vastly more expressive than any non-human animal is capable of.

Not everyone agrees that Neanderthals possessed language like us either, although evidently they are much, much closer evolutionarily to us than crows or whales, and it is vastly more plausible that they talked. Having Neanderthal DNA doesn't mean that we talked with them though, it needn't have been even consensual, unfortunately.

That is not going to happen. I don't know how people entertain these absurd ideas about animal communication.

You mentioned both performance and apps before I did.