3 ms·
It is true. I don't care about having infinite frontier-level intelligence, and I don't care if Fable can one-shot frobnicate a klaxelzorp with a benchmark perf
by ComplexSystems 2mo ago
It is true. I don't care about having infinite frontier-level intelligence, and I don't care if Fable can one-shot frobnicate a klaxelzorp with a benchmark performance of 97%. I doubt most people do, in fact. I just want something that meets the baseline level of intelligence needed to be a really, really good pair programming agent. It shouldn't have any silly dealbreaker issues involving laziness or hallucinations, it should be smart enough to bounce ideas off of, and it should automate doing tedious boilerplate. And - most of all - I want to be able to afford using it as much as I want. That's what has happened here.
- abixb 2mo agoI wonder when we crossed the "99 percentile of intelligence for 99% of the usecases" threshold. At this point, the gains seem to be right at the very edge of bleeding edge for narrow and specialized use cases, and wonder if it'll be a sort of diminishing return from here on.
- horsh1 2mo agoIn April
- dukeofdoom 2mo agoProbably the best counterexample is the games they are able to design. It's still mostly AI slop, few would want to play.
- jqbd 2mo agoWith those cheap models the idea is you're still in the loop anyway so the more expensive model is a waste of time and money. In this case, that means you're steering the game to look like you want not how AI wants.
- bronson 2mo agoSame with the expensive models. Fable can't one-shot a good new game. Game dev is still human-in-the-loop no matter what model you're using.
- mdp2021 2mo ago> narrow and specialized use cases Such as Decision Making. /s You just can't set a high enough threshold of intellectual effort for critical decisions.