9 ms·
isn't this insane? why aren't people freaking out? the jump in capability is outrageous. anyone?
by oliver236 6mo ago
isn't this insane? why aren't people freaking out? the jump in capability is outrageous. anyone?
- nsingh2 6mo agoIt's going to be expensive to serve (also not generally available), considering they said it's the largest model they've ever trained. I suspect it's going to be used to train/distill lighter models. The exciting part for me is the improvement in those lighter models.
- anuramat 6mo ago"some model I don't get to use is much better at benchmarks" pick one or more: comically huge model, test time scaling at 10e12W, benchmark overfit
- estearum 6mo agoSo... you're not excited because it might take a few months before we can use it or something? I don't get your comment.
- randomgermanguy 6mo agoI think the general question is if they'll release it at all, haven't yet read anything stating that they would
- estearum 6mo agoWell let me introduce people to a few brand new concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_race Of course they'll release it once they can de-risk it sufficently and/or a competitor gets close enough on their tail, whichever comes first.
- nimchimpsky 6mo ago[dead]
- RivieraKid 6mo agoWhether you're excited depends on what do you do for living and how close you are to financial independence.
- estearum 6mo agoI agree there are other valid reasons not to be excited about this, I just can't make sense of the ones provided above.
- anuramat 6mo agoI'm not excited because they might be ~lying
- dysoco 6mo agoWait until you see real usage. Benchmark numbers do not necessarily translate to real world performance (at least not by the same amount).
- mofeien 6mo agoI am freaking out. The world is going to get very messy extremely quickly in one or two further jumps in capability like this.
- RivieraKid 6mo agoMessy in a way that would affect you?
- thunderfork 6mo ago"Internet no longer viable" would affect everyone, probably
- BobbyJo 6mo agoThe only thing preventing this today is cost, not capability. As costs come down over the next 5 years, the idea that the internet was once dominated by people will seem quaint.
- RALaBarge 6mo agoExploits in embedded systems that will never be properly updated is just one thing I can think of if one really thought about it.
- mofeien 6mo agoI can think of several possible messy outcomes that would be able to directly affect me, not all mutually exclusive: - Job loss by me being replaced by an AI or by somebody using an AI. Or by an AI using an AI. - Resulting societal instability once blue collar jobs get fully automated at scale, and there is no plan in place to replace this loss of peoples' livelihoods. - People turning to AI models instead of friends for emotional support, loss of human connection. - Erosion of democracy by making authoritarianism and control very scalable, broad in-detail population surveillance and automated investigation using LLMs that was previously bounded by manpower. - Autonomous weapons, "Slaughterbots" as in the short film from 2017 - Biorisk through dangerous biological capabilities that enable a smaller team of less skilled terrorists to use a jailbroken LLM to create something dangerous. - Other powers in the world deciding that this technology is too powerful in the hands of the US, or too dangerous to be built at all and has to be stopped by all means. - Loss of/Voluntary ceding of control over something much smarter than us. "If Anyone Build It, Everyone Dies"
- Eufrat 6mo agoAnthropic needs to show that its models continually get better. If the model showed minimal to no improvement, it would cause significant damage to their valuation. We have no way of validating any of this, there are no independent researchers that can back any of the assertions made by Anthropic. I don’t doubt they have found interesting security holes, the question is how they actually found them. This System Card is just a sales whitepaper and just confirms what that “leak” from a week or so ago implied.
- mirsadm 6mo agoThe numbers only go up to 100% though.
- neolefty 6mo agoMany numbers already have! That's why we keep coming up with new, harder, benchmarks.
- HDThoreaun 6mo agoWell they said theyll be giving the model to select tech companies to use, there soon will be independent users who can comment on its capabilities.
- xvector 6mo agoMost big tech companies have access to the model, you can absolutely "validate their claims" or talk to someone that can.
- nozzlegear 6mo agoFreak out about what? I read the announcement and thought "that's a dumb name, they sure are full of themselves" – then I went back to using Claude as a glorified commit message writer. For all its supposed leaps, AI hasn't affected my life much in the real except to make HN stories more predictable.
- oliver236 6mo agoLOL!
- yrds96 6mo agoI think there's no SOA advance on this one worthy of "freaking out". Looks like they just built a way larger model, with the same quirks than Claude 4. Seems like a super expensive "Claude 4.7" model. I have no doubts that Google and OpenAI already done that for internal (or even government) usage.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- RobertDeNiro 6mo agoWell for one, it’s a PDF
- risyachka 6mo agothe time to freak out was 2 years ago.
- RivieraKid 6mo agoI've been increasingly "freaking out" since about 3 - 4 years ago and it seems that the pessimistic scenario is materializing. It looks like it will be over for software engineers in a not so distant future. In January 2025 I said that I expect software engineers to be replaced in 2 years (pessimistic) to 5 years (optimistic). Right now I'm guessing 1 to 3 years.
- kypro 6mo agoI assure you it will soon become very clear that mass job losses are one of the least concerning side effects of developing the magic "everything that can plausibly been done within the constraints of physics is now possible" machine. We're opening a can of worms which I don't think most people have the imagination to understand the horrors of.
- MattRix 6mo agoyeesh yep, though it's more Pandora's Box than a can of worms, since it can't exactly be closed once it's opened
- ash_091 6mo agoDo you have any sources I could read to better understand your concern?
- cruffle_duffle 6mo agoPiles and piles of sci-fi novels.
- kypro 6mo agoWhat sources would you even be looking for? I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not like I'm arguing a scientific theory which can be backed by data and experimentation. I can only provide you reasoning for why I believe what I believe. Firstly, I'd propose that all technological advances are a product of time and intelligence, and that given unlimited time and intelligence, the discovery and application of new technologies is fundamentally only limited by resources and physics. There are many technologies which might plausibly exist, but which we have not yet discovered because we only have so much intelligence and have only had so much time. With more intelligence we should assume the discovery of new technologies will be much quicker – perhaps exponential if we consider the rate of current technology discovery and exponential progression of AI. There are lots of technologies we have today which would seem like magic to people in the past. Future technologies likely exist which would make us feel this way were they available today. While it's hard to predict specifically which technologies could exist soon in a world with ASI, if we assume it's within the bounds of available resources and physics, we should assume it's at least plausible. Examples: - Mind control – with enough knowledge about how the brain works you can likely devise sensory or electro-magnetic input that would manipulate the functioning of brain to either strongly influence or effectively dictate it's output. - Mind simulation - again, with enough knowledge of the brain, you could take a snapshot of someones mind with an advanced electro-magnetic device and simulate it to torture them in parallel to reveal any secret, or just because you feel like doing it. - Advantage torture – with enough knowledge of human biology death becomes optional in the future. New methods of torture which would have previously have killed the victim are now plausible. States like North-Korea can now force humans to work for hundreds of years in incomprehensible agony for opposing the state. - Advanced biological weapons – with enough knowledge of virology sophisticated tailor-made viruses replace nerve agents as Russia's weapon of choice for killing those accused of treason. These viruses remain dormant in the host for months infecting them and people genetically similar to them (parents, children, grandchildren). After months, the virus rapidly kills its hosts in horrific ways. I could go on, you just need to use your imagination. I'm not arguing any of the above are likely to be discovered, just that it would be very naive to think AI will stop at a cure for cancer. If it gives us cure for cancer, it will give us lots of things we might wish it didn't.
- ryeights 6mo agoUntil recently I would have described myself as an AI skeptic. HN has been a great source for cope on the AI subject over the years. You can find nitpicks, caveats, all sorts of reasons to believe things aren’t as significant as they seem. For me Opus 4.5 was the inflection point where I started to think “maybe this isn’t a bubble.” The figures in this report, if accurate, are terrifying.
- HarHarVeryFunny 6mo agoIf it's so great at software engineering and bug fixing, then why does Claude Code still have 5000+ open bugs? https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20no%3Atype%20label%3Abug https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues?q=is%3Aissu... Apparently whatever SWE-bench is measuring isn't very relevant.
- FergusArgyll 6mo agoProbably because a human still has to review every change and they don't have time
- HarHarVeryFunny 6mo agoSo if all the AI code is being reviewed by humans (not sure this is true, but let's assume it is), then why are there 5000+ bugs? Are you blaming the Anthropic developers rather than the AI?
- anuramat 6mo agoas much as I hate cc, 95% of the issues there are either AI psychosis or user error
- iLoveOncall 6mo agoSo it should be insanely easy for this world altering model to comb through them and close irrelevant ones.
- anuramat 6mo agotorturing a model with human stupidity probably doesn't align with their position on model welfare; wondering if they tried bullying it into hacking its way out of the slop gulag
- menno-sh 6mo ago@anthropic, send me an email if you need access to a jupyter notebook that'd motivate haiku to hack itself into and then back out of the pentagon
- m3kw9 6mo agohave you used it once?
- oliver236 6mo agook bro