jstummbillig

4 ms·

1.
by jstummbillig 13d ago
How many parameters do Astra or Fable have?
2.
by jstummbillig 14d ago
> I can't say I agree with forcing your team to use your own personal "framework" of approaching a problem Is that not prt of what leadership always is? It might be less explicit. People often don't write their proces
3.
by jstummbillig 14d ago
HN would be better if it did not produce disparaging comments in every thread that has Sam Altman on it. I get it. We dislike Sam. I got it 3? 4? years ago. Would be nice and more interesting if we could see past that at some point, given t
4.
by jstummbillig 14d ago
> 'unaware.' [...] I think that is a little bit of what it is to be nice. Me, not being nice: Don't use language to be priggish and confuse. We got enough of that going already.
5.
by jstummbillig 15d ago
Something, not anything. 2 years ago AI tools were much narrower and there were more things that you could not have done, but still plenty that was possible. (Granted, given that you always needed some way of steering the AI and a harness a
6.
by jstummbillig 15d ago
Ach, idk. On average people have horrible design aesthetics, yet are now so arrogant about it, because they imagine their a newly found ability to spot design generated with AI equates to them being able to spot bad design. No, you silly ge
7.
by jstummbillig 18d ago
Wow, spending money on training an almost-frontier-model is much more time intensive than I thought it was.
8.
by jstummbillig 20d ago
That very much depends on how code will be written in the future, how much of it and how often it changes. If more of it will be ephemeral (kind of what agents are already doing for all sorts of tasks right now) finding ways to very cheaply
9.
by jstummbillig 20d ago
While I can feel the pain, the truth is somewhat less outrageous and more somber: Customers for a Blizzard scale RTS simply do not exist.
10.
by jstummbillig 21d ago
Like it! Yeah, they can just take action and pressing them on that is fine. It's not like they asked for policy before they started to mine all the data and sell the resulting product, while, surely, at some point, there must have been
11.
by jstummbillig 21d ago
> Where are those 99$ coming from? Who is actually paying this money? Companies who pay 99$ to make >99$ in return. I am not saying it works in all cases but that's the idea when a company spends money. > Because it seems like
12.
by jstummbillig 22d ago
I am trying to estimate if my reaction to seeing GPT-5.6 Sol last on that list is reasonable or or mostly emotional and find that I have no way of telling.
13.
by jstummbillig 23d ago
In a sane society we would be less willing to pass heavy judgement on so many things at passing glance.
14.
by jstummbillig 23d ago
It's unlikely that right now is peak anything AI.
15.
by jstummbillig 24d ago
Well yes, it is propaganda. They really think that. I think it would be foolish not to debate it. I remember a time in my life where the majority of people around me found the idea of farm animals being capable of fear or pain laughable, wh
16.
by jstummbillig 24d ago
If you are distilling from other models (according to Anthropic reports they are [1]), there are probably a bunch of things that you can just do away with. [1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dis
17.
by jstummbillig 26d ago
For anything that can create better margins, and that is not outlawed, there will be demand.
18.
by jstummbillig 27d ago
The rules are not changing by chance. People want to use the new model. Rules are adjusted to better meet demand. People want things to be better more than they want things to not change. That's a good thing!
19.
by jstummbillig 27d ago
The equivalent alternative is not "no hourly limits", it's simply less overall weekly allowance for Plus users, or higher prices overall. It's a way to balance a scarce resource, and maybe the least frustrating one? Peop
20.
by jstummbillig 28d ago
WELL THEN, if Joan Donovan thinks so.
21.
by jstummbillig 29d ago
Statistically, yes. And statical health things are the only health things to really worry about (because you can't ever do things to avoid getting cancer, you can only ever do things to decrease your chance of getting cancer). But then
22.
by jstummbillig 29d ago
Only if you ignore baseline rates. Which brings us back to my original point.
23.
by jstummbillig 1mo ago
Roughly how we price (high skilled) human labor.
24.
by jstummbillig 1mo ago
Why would that be probable? People on average are fantastically bad at getting probabilities right.
25.
by jstummbillig 1mo ago
As always the writing could be denser, but that is very lossy compression. I enjoyed the full read!
26.
by jstummbillig 1mo ago
I have no idea how one would have to slice their data to conclude that GPT 5.6 is not a significantly better writer than GPT 3.
27.
by jstummbillig 1mo ago
What exact problem? Verbosity? Quality?
28.
by jstummbillig 1mo ago
Most likely outcome seems to be that this period will be over very quickly, and we will have better writing than ever before, forever. We should probably put some more thought toward that part and what it will mean.
29.
by jstummbillig 1mo ago
> [...] is promising but I’ve noticed strange [...] In a nutshell, the perpetual experience of writing your own (web) text editor.
30.
by jstummbillig 1mo ago
It's okay to be a prepper, but you don't have to be. Assuming access to internet, water, electricity and increasingly AI is a entirely fine way to live. It might not be anthropic which you will want to use but current capability m

More ›