nullbio

11 ms·

211.
by nullbio 1mo ago
They can monitor latent space as well, it just costs extra compute. The J-Space work is example of that. It'll make open-weight models harder to distill though, so we may see slower progress there now.
212.
by nullbio 1mo ago
This is spot on. A collaborator is exactly what real AGI is. It will figure out the perfect questions to ask, in the perfect order, by intelligently assessing the entire solution and problem space upfront, so when you leave it to go off on
213.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Agreed. There's not many things I don't want AI to help with, but buying stuff autonomously is high up on the list of things I don't want. Brockman's latest interview was something like: "AGI would be able to say oh
214.
by nullbio 1mo ago
I'm glad to see Anthropic's relevance diminishing day by day. I haven't had a chance to test this model yet, but if they've solved the web design issues and the clunky web copy it generates (like when I ask it to build a
215.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Agreed, and that's exactly why I don't use Claude anymore and haven't for months now. But I'm not most people. Most people don't vote with their wallet, unfortunately.
216.
by nullbio 1mo ago
GLM 5.3 is supposedly incredible for kernel engineering. Have you tried it?
217.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Not to mention you can actually see the tokens you pay for, and you can finetune it or change its system prompt. I think compute providers are the big business. Run any model you like, adjust the weights however you like, adjust the prompts
218.
by nullbio 1mo ago
The incentives are not aligned. Anthropic makes money when you burn tokens. They also hide the tokens you burn from you, so you can't even validate if you actually burned them, you just have to believe them. This is not a lasting busin
219.
by nullbio 1mo ago
So basically, Anthropic can charge you for tokens you don't even see. "Trust me bro, you really did use $5,000 worth of tokens to generate that pelican". We need AI consumer rights, urgently.
220.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Cool, now make it affordable and stop with the infinite refusals and you'll have a product people want to use.
221.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Why would that be cheating? That's what humans do when they learn, they look for the signals and patterns that reduce the possible set of answers so they can converge on the solution and narrow the search space.
222.
by nullbio 1mo ago
"- Personally I think today's frontier models can be beat by training from scratch. Haven't proved this yet tho" Also, in curating the training data in a deliberate manner, with attention to detail. Most people just use
223.
by nullbio 1mo ago
So your argument against this being guerilla marketing is that you bought a Mac Mini after seeing the guerilla marketing, to do the thing that you didn't need a Mac Mini to do.
224.
by nullbio 1mo ago
I prefer the term "unwitting accomplice", others prefer the term "useful idiot".
225.
by nullbio 1mo ago
There's nothing masterful or careful about it. If it were, no one would notice it. This is as obvious and sloppy as it gets. No different to startup founders paying social media marketing companies $10-20k to promote their slop product
226.
by nullbio 1mo ago
That only applies to tweets that are published on behalf of the company, not tweets from sockpuppet accounts that have no direct connection to the company and are made to look like a regular consumer.
227.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Occam's Razor would be that the tens of thousands of marketers that Apple hires (contractors or otherwise) utilize the most obvious and effective strategy for making sales: Spamming the internet and manipulating perceptions. Their mark
228.
by nullbio 1mo ago
That's exactly what it is.
229.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Apple has a huge marketing budget, and evidently, they are not beyond using unethical tactics to sell their products. That's how it started.
230.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Sad that Apple is stooping to the level of spamming the web with bots and fake news to advertise their products. Are there laws against this sort of thing?
231.
by nullbio 1mo ago
I'm convinced that this is just guerilla marketing from Apple. When this started spreading a day or two ago, it was all from no-name spam media sites that are paid to publish articles. They all claimed "a source" is where the
232.
by nullbio 1mo ago
It's the only theory that makes any sense.
233.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Seems to me this is just a way for OpenAI to try and build a moat by putting everyone into their cloud so they can build the tooling internally without exposing it to anyone, causing greater vendor lock-in. Not to mention giving them free r
234.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Which spec are you referring to?
235.
by nullbio 1mo ago
I'm fine with it. I'm just as liable or likely to write bugs in my own handwritten code as I am in generating code via AI, if not more likely.
236.
by nullbio 1mo ago
Conspiracy time: The continuous diffusion model has fruit. Frontier labs were trying to bury it with discrete diffusion distraction, because it is what they're using internally. Momentum wins, in the end.
237.
by nullbio 1mo ago
This is funny to me, because if the age-verification laws were supposed to be a stepping stone toward greater oversight on computing so that AI can be corralled in the future, seeing what is likely to come with billions of spam-bots and zer
238.
by nullbio 1mo ago
I'd bet there's a correlation between benchmaxxing and chart crimes. Companies who try to deceive perceptions via the charts are more likely to cheat at the benchmarks too, I'm sure. That's assuming ill intent, of course
239.
by nullbio 1mo ago
The first company to release solid open-weight models on hardware LLMs to general consumers will change the world. I don't see a good reason to invest in something like an M5 ultra when it'll be so unbearably slow to generate toke
240.
by nullbio 1mo ago
I really like this model. It's the only one I've found so far (except maybe Kimi K3) that I would say I'm happy to use as a main driver.

More ›