zeven7

The parent implied Zuckerberg was there because he was afraid of retaliation

I stand corrected. Still, Trump threatened to imprison other people who didn’t start dressing like a bro and talking differently after the election - and who still aren’t imprisoned.

He also threatened to imprison Hillary Clinton. ~~She wasn't at the inauguration.~~

How weird still that that is the world we live in now. I would have never predict that photograph 1 year before it was taken.

Was that phrase specifically used in the prompt?

He's already done the doing.

I had a similar experience with not being able to convince Claude of a different approach to a problem. Then I shared the idea with Codex and it liked it. As another commenter said, you can have the same thing happen with humans.

This is the beginning of a movie.

The point both are making is that 5.5 produces readable output and 5 to a significant degree did not.

Does it matter if "intelligence and reasoning" are there if what they produce is indistinguishable (or outmatches) what a human could produce?

You only have your own experience to judge that you are even reasoning. You assume others have similar experience and so reason like you because they are able to do all the things that you do - and they look human like you. We can't prove there's a there there in other humans. What happens when the robots are doing everything humans do? What happens when they tell us they are reasoning, when they say they have an internal experience? Maybe there's nothing there, but you can't prove it. Moreover, it's likely they'll be able to affect the world and you in most of the same ways as humans can, whether there's a there there or not.

This isn't a catchy sentence though; it's clearly an LLM. I've read enough LLM writing, and this is it 100%

Also what job do we retrain for?

We're currently at the part of the story where chess AI can beat amateurs and is rapidly improving. Kasparov's not worried, he's an expert. He's more creative and skilled than an AI.

Why would these machines stop improving at average this time?

Well written, and good to reflect on.

However, the one thing I feel like is missed by some in these conversations is that what's being built is a general purpose thinking machine, not a coding machine. How are we going to transition from writing code to solving problems when the machines are solving the problems?

I imagine a mix of models would make sense - GPT controller to make overall decisions and override things (let’s avoid the dark alley it looks dangerous), driving model to handle what humans do when they are just driving and not thinking about it, maybe some other models too

> Fable is also very good at pushing back

Oh man! This also is a pet peeve of mine with Fable. I will look at what it's doing and say "Shouldn't it be done this way?" and then it will spend forever arguing with me that it should be done the way it wanted to do it. It seems to get stuck in a certain way of thinking and will insist its way is right until I can really prove it - or just go over to Astra.

I agree somewhat with the way the agents behave but feel the opposite reaction. With Fable, I get exhausted because it's always dumping out paragraphs of text that explain one approach but have some secret gotcha thrown out in the last two sentences. Then I have to pause and consider the caveat and if it matters and it happens every single time Fable responds and that constantly needing to make a decision that could radically change the approach gives me decision fatigue. I much prefer how much more decisive Astra can be.

That same story happens without LLM involvement. I’ve also seen LLM suggest updating a lib. So unfortunately nothing about this story speaks to a difference between LLM and human capabilities.

What if you have 10-20% certainty the AI being built will kill everyone? Go on a rampage and land yourself in prison just so Lab B or China can win the arms race and their AI can kill everyone? Probably not. Quit your job? Sure.

Terence Tao said the same[1]

> In fact, it is now the identification of a promising problem which is the scarce and precious resource. We have now seen that even the rumor of someone working on a problem can trigger a massive amount of AI-powered effort to flatten it before the original research project has time to reach its full potential. The incentives may now be pointing in the direction of no longer sharing any promising research directions with the broader community, which would reverse centuries of traditions of open science and do serious long-term damage to the future of the field.

[1] https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117237322160500501

Claude doesn’t have text to image generation, unlike Gemini and OpenAI, so like Qwen it falls back to creating an SVG through text generation

One administration

If you get a black pixel you get a 46 billion light-year line-cone

Whenever I have Claude make changes I ask Codex to review the changes and reduce the comments.

I bounce between Sol high/medium and Luna max. I don't know why you'd use anything between Luna max and Sol medium. Luna is so extremely cheap and cranked up to max it does anything I'd want Terra to do for a fraction of the cost. What is Terra for?

This is the sentiment of people who haven't accepted that this is in fact something very different from what people have seen in the past.

And then everyone wanted to pay for the model that was so smart it was banned?

I've thought similarly about music before. Everything's there in white noise. To get music you just have to selectively remove parts of it.

They burned non-renewable resources at an unsustainable pace, like nothing ever seen before in history, resources that took millions of years for the Earth to produce, gone in a century, to make themselves wealthy - among other things.

Man invents text generation machine.

Man generates text.