10 ms·
They have a silent nerfing system for their models and say so openly. The obvious question is how much it is being used already. Competitor companies being ner
by torben-friis 4mo ago
They have a silent nerfing system for their models and say so openly. The obvious question is how much it is being used already.
Competitor companies being nerfed?
Non Americans getting worse code?
Punishing and rewarding users to maximize engagement, like online games do affecting victories through matchmaking?
- cyanydeez 4mo ago$$$$$$: no nerf $$$$: a little nerf $$$: more nerf $$: are you poor? $: be permanent underclass
- cyanydeez 4mo agohopefully no one thinks this is satire or a joke.
- notrealyme123 4mo agoThis send chills down my spine. For now I will not use Fable in my research. The risks of being sabotaged by the model are not worth it.
- canada_dry 4mo agoI re-subscribed to GPT's "PLUS" plan after ditching Anthropic for lack luster results... one of the first coding tasks I gave it resulted in a progress/thinking message that said something to the effect of (it vanished too quickly to get a screen shot unfortunately): Evaluating client value It took me aback. Note: the code had nothing to do with "client value". Behind the scenes it is not hard to imagine OpenAI, Anthropic, et al simply minimizing processing for clients - like me - that are hopping from one to another to chase the just released SOTA model.
- dannyw 4mo agoI wouldn’t over interpret this. It could be a bad summary of “what solution would be more valuable to the user?”
- gck1 4mo agoNo big pockets and ask it to review your own codebase for security issues? You hacker. Ban. Anthropic simply can't be allowed to succeed. This is the most E Corp shit I've seen since I've been alive.
- port11 4mo agoIt’s not pretty, but if Anthropic is the E Corp of this timeline, we’re not being creative enough. There’s better targets out there for this comparison.
- gck1 4mo agoThey're just getting started, and every statement/decision they make becomes more concerning than the previous one. Isn't it concerning that a single company unilaterally decided for the world that they're the ultimate gatekeepers and they decide who gets access to the frontier artifical intelligence and in which capacity? Who elected Amodei to decide which projects get to have the access to a dual-use cyber model and which get a model which sabotages? How is this not straight from E Corp's rulebook?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- port11 4mo agoGood point. I imagine that other labs also restrict access to frontier models, but less publicly so. Do we know that, say, Gemini lets you develop a competitor product without any safeguards? In general this appears to be par-for-the-course with tech. Many Google products are notoriously slower or even unusable in Safari and Firefox, but we can't know for sure whether that's due to Chrome optimizations or purposefully wasted code cycles in other browsers.
- viking123 4mo agoAmodei is worse psychopath than Altman, and by far
- skeledrew 4mo ago> Non Americans getting worse code? This is a scary thought: tailoring quality based on user profile.
- rrr_oh_man 4mo agolaughs in Google search
- zombot 4mo agoIf it doesn't happen already, politicians will mandate it. "We can't allow our enemies (foreign and domestic) to use our tools against us."
- nullbio 4mo agoAll of the above, and it hasn't just started now. It's been happening for several years at this point.