emp17344

6 ms·

121.
by emp17344 6mo ago
>It's pretty easy to get determinism with a simple harness for a well-defined set of tasks with the recent models that are post-trained for tool use. Do you have a source? Claude Code is the only genetic system that seems to really
122.
by emp17344 6mo ago
There’s a lot of redundancy, because there has to be to make the system useful. It’s a hacked together mess.
123.
by emp17344 6mo ago
If you saw the Claude Code leak, you’d know the harness is anything but simple. It’s a sprawling, labyrinthine mess, but it’s required to make LLMs somewhat deterministic and useful as tools.
124.
by emp17344 6mo ago
I think you’ve got your answer, then. If nobody can tell you what it’s really used for, it likely doesn’t have any real use cases.
125.
by emp17344 6mo ago
Fair enough
126.
by emp17344 6mo ago
There are other users in this very thread using inflammatory language to attack this paper and those who find the paper compelling. One user says, quote: “You just can't reason with the anti-LLM group.” In light of this, why was my com
127.
by emp17344 6mo ago
It matters if you’re curious about whether AGI is possible. Have we really built “thinking machines”, or are these systems just elaborate harnesses that leverage the non-deterministic nature of LLMs?
128.
by emp17344 6mo ago
AI labs think they’re building an autonomous replacement for software engineers, while software engineers see these systems as tools to supplement the process of software engineering.
129.
by emp17344 6mo ago
I think this is still useful research that calls into question how “smart” these models are. If the model needs a separate tool to solve a problem, has the model really solved the problem, or just outsourced it to a harness that it’s been t
130.
by emp17344 6mo ago
[flagged]
131.
by emp17344 6mo ago
That is, in fact, how it comes across. You’re labeling perceived opponents as “emotional” and “dismissive”.
132.
by emp17344 7mo ago
If it’s a bubble, it has to pop sooner or later. It’s better if it pops now before growing even larger.
133.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Why do you believe progress is currently exponential? There’s one dubious chart showing “exponential growth” in a single narrow domain, and otherwise zero evidence to suggest exponential improvement.
134.
by emp17344 7mo ago
For this use case, how do LLMs provide more value than a standard search engine? They may actually be destroying value here, as LLM-generated text pollutes search results.
135.
by emp17344 7mo ago
There is no proof, just a self-congratulatory word salad with dubious authenticity. It’s insane how insufferable this place is now.
136.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Why must it involve understanding? I feel like you’re operating under the assumption that functionalism is the “correct” philosophical framework without considering alternative views.
137.
by emp17344 7mo ago
No dude, you don’t understand! It’s just so advanced now that you aren’t allowed to levy any criticism whatsoever!
138.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Yet more evidence that the harness matters more than the model.
139.
by emp17344 7mo ago
No, it’s abused almost solely by AI boosters. This isn’t a “both sides” situation.
140.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Too bad they aren’t doing either!
141.
by emp17344 7mo ago
I feel like you’re wrong. This is a clear signal that generative video is deeply unpopular.
142.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Nope. It was just a bad product that no one wanted. It’s not a super-secret indicator that OpenAI is actually going to take over the world any day now.
143.
by emp17344 7mo ago
You sound desperate to believe this. I think you could use a little more emotional distance here.
144.
by emp17344 7mo ago
So much for “replacing VFX artists”. It’s not necessarily a harbinger of doom for the AI industry, but this indicates that the most fervent AI boosters were dead wrong.
145.
by emp17344 7mo ago
The parent comment is a pretty measured take. What’s your problem with it?
146.
by emp17344 7mo ago
AI enthusiasts love to misuse and abuse the goalpost metaphor. It’s practically always an attempt to silence opponents.
147.
by emp17344 7mo ago
No, it’s… fine. Useful in a limited capacity. Not the machine god, but not machine Satan either. The reality is kind of boring.
148.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Why should we care that he’s famous?
149.
by emp17344 7mo ago
How convenient!
150.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Wishful thinking. AI is useful, but it’s far more niche than militantly pro-AI people like you want to believe. It’s a useful tool, nothing more.

More ›