supern0va

8 ms·

91.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>LLMs just wait for a prompt, so they do nothing and are just frozen in place. I'm not sure that's a compelling argument. Humans can be put into a similar state where they are unconscious and not thinking. Think of someone in a
92.
by supern0va 4mo ago
Funny enough, the models seemingly go insane and decohere into noise output in the absence of sensory input, which is remarkably similar to what would happen to a human. That said, I'm not sure I follow what you're actually aski
93.
by supern0va 4mo ago
I will say, I find it fascinating that there are some philosophers and consciousness researchers who seem to be less certain. I just listened to Chris Hayes interview David Chalmers this week, whose position seemed to be that it's pro
94.
by supern0va 4mo ago
Yeah, I have to admit to finding it somewhat ironic that some individuals accuse the "pro AI" folks of magical thinking, when it seems that escalating levels of magical thinking are being used by the "anti" crowd to sugg
95.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>I'm more interested in the conclusion that programming doesn't require thinking. I suspect it largely has to do with how one defines "thinking". It seems like people like to implicitly define it in such a way as to r
96.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>If anything AI will be used to correct all the crappy human made code that is still being pushed due to the vanity of coders still pretending that they are better than AI at coding. In my organization, this is already happening. We&#x27
97.
by supern0va 4mo ago
I'm not sure an article that gives one paragraph summaries of the common anti-LLM talking points is really a substantial contribution to the conversation. This is essentially a snarked up version of a "Criticisms" section one
98.
by supern0va 4mo ago
Your statement seems to be implying (correctly) that LLMs can program, but just not as well as humans. If they're able to program presumably without "thinking" as you seem to be (implicitly) narrowly defining it, then why d
99.
by supern0va 5mo ago
I think you replied to the wrong parent.
100.
by supern0va 5mo ago
>It is almost guaranteed that a 60-90B model can outperform current SOTA in coding tasks within 2-3 years. I don't disagree, but how much of this ends up being distillation? I can't help but imagine that 4.8 was probably traine
101.
by supern0va 5mo ago
Interestingly enough, 4.7 actually did regress on a few benchmarks from 4.6, so it's more than just vibes.
102.
by supern0va 5mo ago
What is the motivation for us users to lie about our experiences? It's to the degree now that people simply refuse to believe that I'm honestly describing my experiences with these tools? I understand the motivations for the labs
103.
by supern0va 5mo ago
>Read the other comment in the thread. Your buddy literally confirmed exactly what I wrote. Please engage in good faith. I commented that humans are the final step of the review process.
104.
by supern0va 5mo ago
Ed actually seems to make some really serious errors in his work. Tim Lee called out a particularly egregious one here, though it's one of many: https://x.com/binarybits/status/2050562429709377986 That said,
105.
by supern0va 5mo ago
>more like their own leak to WSJ and according to Ed Zitron ^ Apologies, the above read to me like you were saying that Ed himself was claiming that Anthropic leaked to the WSJ.
106.
by supern0va 5mo ago
Yep! We have a review process where we have a few agents, each tuned to a particular domain of expertise (security, code quality, etc) which iterate until the feedback meets a certain threshold, at which point it goes over to humans for (ho
107.
by supern0va 5mo ago
AFAIK, most predictions from several years ago were for...approximately now to within the next few years. Can you be more specific? You criticized a very specific (and fake/misquoted) prediction, ignored the correction, and are now cri
108.
by supern0va 5mo ago
Fair enough, but I have to admit I'm puzzled about why you felt the need to then attribute it to Zitron?
109.
by supern0va 5mo ago
I will note that you have essentially not responded to anything specific in my comment, nor at least acknowledged that you misstated Dario Amodei's actual prediction.
110.
by supern0va 5mo ago
>Actually he provides sources when he analyses stuff and imho much better than the usual corporate You said it was likely an internal leak to the WSJ "according to Ed Zitron". Did Ed have a source for that, or was it just vibes
111.
by supern0va 5mo ago
I must admit that I am going to find it fascinating when we hit the point where it becomes nearly impossible to deny the efficacy of these tools. I have straight up had people, even in real life, suggest that I'm lying about my product
112.
by supern0va 5mo ago
I work in big tech and probably 90% of code over the last month has been written by AI. And I suspect it's probably higher within Anthropic, which is probably what he's basing his opinion on. So, he's closer to correct than n
113.
by supern0va 5mo ago
>Due to the nature of this format not even the original author checks old comments and absolutely no chance any new conversation sparks out of it. Sometimes I wonder if the format actually helps. I suspect that when you know you can pret
114.
by supern0va 5mo ago
>according to Ed Zitron So, unsourced vibes from a shady guy whose entire empire is built on being against AI? I genuinely don't know how folks can continuously buy into anything he has to say after that Wired piece. The credibility
115.
by supern0va 5mo ago
>If you have AI systems that can simply build out POCs in days, backtest on real data, show reliable results and numbers, you get a suite of product options you were never able to get before. If you have coding agents that can speed up i
116.
by supern0va 5mo ago
It's not. Believe it or not, words mean things.
117.
by supern0va 5mo ago
And yet, it somehow has significantly better conversations than most places online. Maybe on par with reddit 10-15 years ago. It's frankly depressing how few places there are to have quality conversations, particularly for general tech
118.
by supern0va 5mo ago
That's correct, and their recent work on natural language autoencoders has given extremely compelling evidence of that...which is why their data collection practices for pre-training have almost certainly evolved, particularly since th
119.
by supern0va 5mo ago
I think these sort of efforts are mostly self-soothing at this point. It is almost certainly the case that the labs are at a minimum running inference over the information they're pulling and ensuring that it's useful/suitabl
120.
by supern0va 5mo ago
>No, the complaint with Adobe is that if you cancel, they terminate access immediately rather than at the end of the billing period. There is no explanation for this other than a predatory one This is exactly what Shutterstock does. What

More ›