4 ms·

GPT-2, o1, Opus...been here so many times. The reason they do this is because they know it works (and they seem to specifically employ credulous people who are

GPT-2, o1, Opus...been here so many times. The reason they do this is because they know it works (and they seem to specifically employ credulous people who are prone to believe AGI is right around the corner). There haven't been significant innovations, the code generated is still not good but the hype cycle has to retrigger. I remember when OpenAI created the first thinking model with o1 and there were all these breathless posts on here hyperventilating about how the model had to be kept secret, how dangerous it was, etc. Fell for it again award. All thinking does is burn output tokens for accuracy, it is the AI getting high on its own supply, this isn't innovation but it was supposed to super AGI. Not serious.

vonneumannstan 6mo ago
Lol you haven't used a model since GPT2 is what it sounds like.
- skippyboxedhero 6mo ago
  Just checked my subscription start date for Anthropic. September 2023, I believe before they announced public launch. Sorry kid.
  - vonneumannstan 6mo ago
    So you are doubly stupid, by not seeing any improvement in the models and also paying for models you believe are terrible? lol
    - skippyboxedhero 6mo ago
      That doesn't follow logically from what I said. You should ask your AI for help with this. You are in need of some artificial intelligence.
  - SyneRyder 6mo ago
    Genuine question - if you don't think the models are improved or that the code is any good, why do you still have a subscription? You must see some value, or are you in a situation where you're required to test / use it, eg to report on it or required by employer? (I would disagree about the code, the benefits seem obvious to me. But I'm still curious why others would disagree, especially after actively using them for years.)
    - skippyboxedhero 6mo ago
      The assumption that the other person made was that I would only use it for coding. If you look through my other comments today, I suggest that they are useful for performing repetitive tasks i.e. checking lint on PR, etc. Also, can be used for throwaway code, very useful. I don't think the issue is with the model, it is with the implication that AGI is just around the corner and that is what is required for AI to be useful...which is not accurate. The more grey area is with agentic coding but my opinion (one that I didn't always hold) is that these workflows are a complete waste of time. The problem is: if all this is true then how does the CTO justify spending $1m/month on Anthropic (I work somewhere where this has happened, OpenAI got the earlier contract then Cursor Teams was added, now they are adding Anthropic...within 72 hours of the rollout, it was pulled back from non-engineering teams). I think companies will ask why they need to pay Anthropic to do a job they were doing without Anthropic six months ago. Also, the code is bad. This is something that is non-obvious to 95% of people who talk about AI online because they don't work in a team environment or manage legacy applications. If I interview somewhere and they are using agentic workflow, the codebase will be shit and the company will be unable to deliver. At most companies, the average developer is an idiot, giving them AI is like giving a monkey an AK-47 (I also say this as someone of middling competence, I have been the monkey with AK many times). You increase the ability to produce output without improving the ability to produce good output. That is the reality of coding in most jobs. AI isn't good enough to replace a competent human, it is fast enough to make an incompetent human dangerous.
      - carbon_14 6mo ago
        so true.
simianwords 6mo ago
Incredible that people still think like this.
- skippyboxedhero 6mo ago
  You're completely right.
  - simianwords 6mo ago
    uhh the model found actual vulnerabilities in software that people use. either you believe that the vulnerabilities were not found or were not serious enough to warrant a more thoughtful release
    - mlsu 6mo ago
      So did GPT-4. https://arxiv.org/html/2402.06664v1 https://arxiv.org/html/2402.06664v1 Like think carefully about this. Did they discover AGI? Or did a bunch of investors make a leveraged bet on them "discovering AGI" so they're doing absolutely anything they can to make it seem like this time it's brand new and different. If we're to believe Anthropic on these claims, we also have to just take it on faith, with absolutely no evidence, that they've made something so incredibly capable and so incredibly powerful that it cannot possibly be given to mere mortals. Conveniently, that's exactly the story that they are selling to investors. Like do you see the unreliable narrator dynamic here?
      - simianwords 6mo ago
        I don't see the problem here. How would you have handled it differently? If you released this model as such without any safety concern, the vulnerabilities might be found by bad actors and used for wrong things. What do you find surprising here?
        mlsu 6mo ago
        Vulnerabilities were found, probably a few by bad actors, when GPT4 was released. Every vulnerability found now is probably found with AI assistance at the very least. Should they have never released GPT4? Should we have believed claims that GPT4 was too dangerous for mere mortals to access? I believe openAI was making similar claims about how GPT4 was a step function and going to change white collar work forever when that model was released. The point is that this whole "the model is too powerful" schtick is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. It serves the valuation.
b65e8bee43c2ed0 6mo ago
>I remember when OpenAI created the first thinking model with o1 and there were all these breathless posts on here hyperventilating about how the model had to be kept secret, how dangerous it was, etc. I've read that about Llama and Stable Diffusion. AI doomers are, and always have been, retarded.
chaos_emergent 6mo ago
> All thinking does is burn output tokens for accuracy “All that phenomenon X does is make a tradeoff of Y for Z” It sounds like you’re indignant about it being called thinking, that’s fine, but surely you can realize that the mechanism you’re criticizing actually works really well?

vonneumannstan 6mo ago

Lol you haven't used a model since GPT2 is what it sounds like.

skippyboxedhero 6mo ago
Just checked my subscription start date for Anthropic. September 2023, I believe before they announced public launch. Sorry kid.
- vonneumannstan 6mo ago
  So you are doubly stupid, by not seeing any improvement in the models and also paying for models you believe are terrible? lol
  - skippyboxedhero 6mo ago
    That doesn't follow logically from what I said. You should ask your AI for help with this. You are in need of some artificial intelligence.
- SyneRyder 6mo ago
  Genuine question - if you don't think the models are improved or that the code is any good, why do you still have a subscription? You must see some value, or are you in a situation where you're required to test / use it, eg to report on it or required by employer? (I would disagree about the code, the benefits seem obvious to me. But I'm still curious why others would disagree, especially after actively using them for years.)
  - skippyboxedhero 6mo ago
    The assumption that the other person made was that I would only use it for coding. If you look through my other comments today, I suggest that they are useful for performing repetitive tasks i.e. checking lint on PR, etc. Also, can be used for throwaway code, very useful. I don't think the issue is with the model, it is with the implication that AGI is just around the corner and that is what is required for AI to be useful...which is not accurate. The more grey area is with agentic coding but my opinion (one that I didn't always hold) is that these workflows are a complete waste of time. The problem is: if all this is true then how does the CTO justify spending $1m/month on Anthropic (I work somewhere where this has happened, OpenAI got the earlier contract then Cursor Teams was added, now they are adding Anthropic...within 72 hours of the rollout, it was pulled back from non-engineering teams). I think companies will ask why they need to pay Anthropic to do a job they were doing without Anthropic six months ago. Also, the code is bad. This is something that is non-obvious to 95% of people who talk about AI online because they don't work in a team environment or manage legacy applications. If I interview somewhere and they are using agentic workflow, the codebase will be shit and the company will be unable to deliver. At most companies, the average developer is an idiot, giving them AI is like giving a monkey an AK-47 (I also say this as someone of middling competence, I have been the monkey with AK many times). You increase the ability to produce output without improving the ability to produce good output. That is the reality of coding in most jobs. AI isn't good enough to replace a competent human, it is fast enough to make an incompetent human dangerous.
    - carbon_14 6mo ago
      so true.

simianwords 6mo ago

Incredible that people still think like this.

skippyboxedhero 6mo ago
You're completely right.
- simianwords 6mo ago
  uhh the model found actual vulnerabilities in software that people use. either you believe that the vulnerabilities were not found or were not serious enough to warrant a more thoughtful release
  - mlsu 6mo ago
    So did GPT-4. https://arxiv.org/html/2402.06664v1 https://arxiv.org/html/2402.06664v1 Like think carefully about this. Did they discover AGI? Or did a bunch of investors make a leveraged bet on them "discovering AGI" so they're doing absolutely anything they can to make it seem like this time it's brand new and different. If we're to believe Anthropic on these claims, we also have to just take it on faith, with absolutely no evidence, that they've made something so incredibly capable and so incredibly powerful that it cannot possibly be given to mere mortals. Conveniently, that's exactly the story that they are selling to investors. Like do you see the unreliable narrator dynamic here?
    - simianwords 6mo ago
      I don't see the problem here. How would you have handled it differently? If you released this model as such without any safety concern, the vulnerabilities might be found by bad actors and used for wrong things. What do you find surprising here?
      - mlsu 6mo ago
        Vulnerabilities were found, probably a few by bad actors, when GPT4 was released. Every vulnerability found now is probably found with AI assistance at the very least. Should they have never released GPT4? Should we have believed claims that GPT4 was too dangerous for mere mortals to access? I believe openAI was making similar claims about how GPT4 was a step function and going to change white collar work forever when that model was released. The point is that this whole "the model is too powerful" schtick is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. It serves the valuation.

b65e8bee43c2ed0 6mo ago

>I remember when OpenAI created the first thinking model with o1 and there were all these breathless posts on here hyperventilating about how the model had to be kept secret, how dangerous it was, etc. I've read that about Llama and Stable Diffusion. AI doomers are, and always have been, retarded.

chaos_emergent 6mo ago

> All thinking does is burn output tokens for accuracy “All that phenomenon X does is make a tradeoff of Y for Z” It sounds like you’re indignant about it being called thinking, that’s fine, but surely you can realize that the mechanism you’re criticizing actually works really well?