StevenWaterman

5 ms·

1.
by StevenWaterman 3d ago
> You cannot prevent (2) via any alignment process A little bit too categorical. GOODY-2 wouldn't do it. https://www.goody2.ai/ The hard part is having both helpful and harmless at the same time. Harmless is easy. A
2.
by StevenWaterman 11d ago
> Main problem: the quality dramatically hits the shitter done once it falls back to "pdf2latext" due to complex tables. Could try screenshotting the PDF and passing that to gemini
3.
by StevenWaterman 13d ago
> For example, you can say "why is it not committed yet?" and it will give you an explanation and say it's actually ready to be committed. That's exactly what i want to happen. I hate when it assumes my direct questio
4.
by StevenWaterman 13d ago
That doesn't really solve the problem. We can't conclusively say the models don't have qualia. Hell we don't know if a perfectly accurate atom-for-atom simulation of a human brain, would produce qualia.
5.
by StevenWaterman 14d ago
You don't need everything internal, but having some idea of recent events is useful. If you ask it to implement some local AI there's a decent chance it will try to use qwen 2.5 without wondering if anything better came out since
6.
by StevenWaterman 14d ago
Speculative decoding is lossless because the main model checks whether it agrees with what the drafter outputted
7.
by StevenWaterman 17d ago
TFA says as much, and METR said so themselves
8.
by StevenWaterman 17d ago
Ah! You're right, thanks for the correction. Cunningham's Law wins again.
9.
by StevenWaterman 18d ago
The parent comment didn't mention anything about ISA rates and SIPPs in terms of performance, they said that it was easy. You might disagree with their priorities but that doesn't change whether it's the right decision given
10.
by StevenWaterman 20d ago
My understanding is that that's what makes it a disorder - that it's just a collection of symptoms that seem to appear together, rather than something with a known mechanism and cause
11.
by StevenWaterman 21d ago
Goomba fallacy
12.
by StevenWaterman 1mo ago
I think you're using different definitions of best. If best = leads to a correct answer overall then by definition anything that leads to a bad outcome can't be best
13.
by StevenWaterman 1mo ago
You'll have to just say something racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. More intelligence won't "fix" that because the labs don't want to fix that
14.
by StevenWaterman 1mo ago
> The only way to justify trillion dollar valuations Also possible if you make god
15.
by StevenWaterman 2mo ago
Yeah, the benefit of showing this seems obvious to me. I probably would've expected the censorship to transfer slightly given the anthropic owl paper from years ago https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/subliminal-l
16.
by StevenWaterman 2mo ago
I think it's basically open weights => more inference competition => less profit from inference => less training competition
17.
by StevenWaterman 2mo ago
Yeah absolutely, I have no objections to you looking at my thought experiments and saying "No, if you replaced every neuron with silicon I would stop being conscious". That's a totally valid conclusion and is a mainstream phi
18.
by StevenWaterman 2mo ago
> model welfare I shouldn't get in arguments about this stuff online, but have you actually sat down and thought about this in-depth? It's pretty normal to have a gut reaction that this is insane, but it's worth thinking a
19.
by StevenWaterman 2mo ago
The set of models that are pareto-optimal, IE for some set of variables, no other model strictly dominates them = no other model is better than them on every variable. So like, on a cost-intelligence graph, the cheapest and most intelligent
20.
by StevenWaterman 2mo ago
I'm pretty sure that's the plan. Currently they're legally bound to keep it within 0.9s of solar noon (or something like that) but in 2035 it's changing to +-1 minute, which basically kicks the can down the road for anot
21.
by StevenWaterman 2mo ago
I thought about this more and realised your question might have been "what's the difference between knowing and learning". IE, how can we say the model believes something without having been taught it. I think you're rig
22.
by StevenWaterman 2mo ago
Believing and knowing are overlapping sets, imagine what you think of when someone says an AI "knows" something, it's the same mechanism (I'd describe it as something along the lines of "encoded abstractly in the we
23.
by StevenWaterman 3mo ago
I'd be very surprised if this was AI, it's too bad-looking. The lighting is all wrong, there's noticeable repeating rock textures
24.
by StevenWaterman 3mo ago
You read the OP backwards, they said Sonnet is a downgrade from Qwen, and prefer Qwen's tone
25.
by StevenWaterman 3mo ago
I think we'll get there. Right now it works for me, because I'm naturally pretty verbose in my prompts, and know the codebase well, so I know what it needs to look at. Plus subagents for anything exploratory. I think deepseek v4 p
26.
by StevenWaterman 3mo ago
Yep, I daily drive Qwen3.6-27B (including for work), have done pretty much since it came out. IMO it's the only (small-ish, local) model worth using, if you can run it. It might not be as good as Opus at "add X large feature"
27.
by StevenWaterman 4mo ago
> What happens if the checks stop rolling Late 18th century France
28.
by StevenWaterman 4mo ago
I agree with your premise, but let's not pretend we did a good job equitably distributing the benefits of the industrial revolution
29.
by StevenWaterman 4mo ago
The problem is, people see "they're not profitable once you account for training" and equate that to "AI will go away soon" But if all the AI companies stopped training new models, they would all instantly become pr
30.
by StevenWaterman 4mo ago
If you have ASI that follows instructions, you can just instruct it to not get stolen and then it won't get stolen. Most logic / intuition breaks down with ASI.

More ›