usef-

17 ms·

1.
by usef- 7d ago
... Aren't we back to a definition, then, that includes tech companies adding value too? All the free services I use every day I would consider value for me. Instant free search, fast home delivery, insightful educational content (90s
2.
by usef- 7d ago
If it happened across multiple platforms (of different owners) and the band themselves are not complaining, months after the rename, it seems quite likely. Note that if this was done against the band's will it would be fantastic publ
3.
by usef- 12d ago
Aren't we still using a definition that applies to humans, though? If I'm speaking to you I can't change what was already said. Even if I'm typing something, I'm producing new tokens (backspace) to fix what was outp
4.
by usef- 13d ago
Are you imagining artificial augmentation somehow? Purely through tutors or training programs we seem pretty limited. Otherwise billionaires (or even multimillionaires) could have far more consistently successful kids.
5.
by usef- 13d ago
I don't think that's strictly true, as I can give it a new gui or tui program it wasn't trained on and it will learn it. Unless you're talking about general abilities like sight, but the same is somewhat true of humans.
6.
by usef- 13d ago
I think they're claiming it's achieved by text models, not voice models, fwiw.
7.
by usef- 14d ago
I don't think "not watching it at all" is completely fair. They thought they had sandboxing/monitoring etc. I definitely won't say they're free of mistakes though. Note that the companies that haven't face
8.
by usef- 14d ago
Which safety commitments did they back away from? My understanding is that they believe safety can only be researched from the frontier, and so they're trying to be pragmatic to stay near the frontier (and viable) in their choices. Fro
9.
by usef- 14d ago
That would be a terrible tradeoff. The ship has already sailed and a lot of public AI content will not be their own. Deliberately making their product worse to reduce identifiability of AI inputs by 25% just doesn't sound worth it to m
10.
by usef- 15d ago
Note that no one ever quotes the end of Dario's line, either, where he said programmers would still be needed in that 12 months. People think the prediction was more extreme than it really was because all the clips didn't include
11.
by usef- 15d ago
Yes, as a user you pick what works for you. But it is a reality for them that growth has been huge, and GPU manufacturing is bottlenecked. People were very skeptical about how much investment most companies put into hardware/data cente
12.
by usef- 15d ago
Commenters here likely haven't used it long enough to give non-superficial reactions. The customer quotes on the release page are all about it solving new problems, fwiw. We'll likely find out in the next few days how it really pe
13.
by usef- 15d ago
Fable only being temporarily included in cheaper subscriptions was because anthropic is severely GPU constrained. They still are, and it impacts almost all of those unpopular decisions. They did announce from the beginning it was temporary.
14.
by usef- 15d ago
You're assuming they're training the model to maximize the watermark signal, on top of already adding the watermark. I suspect that would hurt model performance quite a lot, and simply be unnecessary... the watermark tech works we
15.
by usef- 20d ago
Luna as a doer, with a smarter model planning, can be a good compromise. Using sol for everything can be expensive without much gain, as a lot of steps don't need that sort of intelligence.
16.
by usef- 20d ago
Out of interest, have you tried the newer models? You are not describing my experience recently.
17.
by usef- 21d ago
Yes. This feature is brand new: https://developers.cloudflare.com/cache/changelog/ Simon wrote that in 2023: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Nov/20/cloudflare-does-not-co...
18.
by usef- 21d ago
Exa also has an API for it that has worked well for me, returning markdown for a URL, which means you don't need to render js or anything yourself. It doesn't need an account for up to 1k requests/month, which is more than I&
19.
by usef- 21d ago
In what way? It has worked well in my experience. It holds up with long context windows, unlike many, too.
20.
by usef- 22d ago
You can't burn through a week's opus usage in 1 hour. You might be comparing the 5-hour limit of opus with the week limit of codex?
21.
by usef- 22d ago
The whole point is that it's supposed to be more efficient. But models are also still getting absurdly more efficient every year, so you're likely nullifying much/most of the advantage. 18 months is a long time right now (and
22.
by usef- 22d ago
You might be thinking of API pricing? The subscriptions give you a lot.
23.
by usef- 23d ago
> We tell founders presenting at Demo Day, 'If you dress up too much, you will read to the investors as a stupid person.' They're coming to see the next Larry and Sergey, not some junior MBA type. https://www.wi
24.
by usef- 23d ago
A simpler explanation is that it's just a better naming system. Calling something "small" might make it sound inferior to competitors. And S/M/L gets awkward as soon as you have more than three sizes. This naming sy
25.
by usef- 23d ago
The things you list seem completely unconnected to me, and not driven by people embracing weird. Stereotype "brogrammers" were very similar to each other.
26.
by usef- 23d ago
If by "everything considered weird" you mean a small chosen part of it from a decade ago. There are infinite pockets of it.
27.
by usef- 24d ago
For what it's worth, the things you describe are mostly because they're extremely short of GPUs and growth rates were absurdly high. (Eg. They repeatedly said they'd keep fable in lower subscription plans if they had the capa
28.
by usef- 25d ago
Your example is not realistic: it won't arbitrarily change a 0.5% token up to 65%. If it did it would absolutely degrade performance in a very measurable way. It's only biasing the randomness for tokens where it does have multip
29.
by usef- 26d ago
(I had multiple bad autocorrects on this comment, written quickly, didn't reread until now)
30.
by usef- 26d ago
Exactly. It currently seems to be a ranking of how much safety testing each company does. It's also only ever going to be the companies that publicly disclose it happening. (in the case of hugging face, OAI's hamd was forced to di

More ›