Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s reasonable? It’s less than minimum hourly wage in some countries.
Burned in seconds.
You could slow down the inference to make the task take longer, if $/sec matters.
291–300 of 722 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s reasonable? It’s less than minimum hourly wage in some countries.
Burned in seconds.
You could slow down the inference to make the task take longer, if $/sec matters.
The pelican riding a bicycle is excellent . I think it's the best I've seen. https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/12/gemini-3-deep-think/
Is it me or is the rate of model release is accelerating to an absurd degree? Today we have Gemini 3 Deep Think and GPT 5.3 Codex Spark. Yesterday we had GLM5 and MiniMax M2.5. Five days before that we had Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.3. Then maybe two weeks I think before that we had Kimi K2.5.
I think it is because of the Chinese new year. The Chinese labs like to publish their models arround the Chinese new year, and the US labs do not want to let a DeepSeek R1 (20 January 2025) impact event happen again, so i guess they publish models that are more capable then what they imagine Chinese labs are yet capable of producing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about Kimi and GLM?
These are well behind the general state of the art (1yr or so), though they're arguably the best openly-available models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the point of comparing performance of these tools to humans? Machines have been able to accomplish specific tasks better than humans since the industrial revolution. Yet we don't ascribe intelligence to a calculator. None of these benchmarks prove these tools are intelligent, let alone generally intelligent. The hubris and grift are exhausting.
> Machines have been able to accomplish specific tasks... Indeed, and the specific task machines are accomplishing now is intelligence. Not yet "better than human" (and certainly not better than every human) but getting closer.
How so? This sentence, like most of this field, is making baseless claims that are more aspirational than true.
Maybe it would help if we could first agree on a definition of "intelligence", yet we don't have a reliable way of measuring that in living beings either.
If the people building and hyping this technology had any sense of modesty, they would present it as what it actually is: a large pattern matching and generation machine. This doesn't mean that this can't be very useful, perhaps generally so, but it's a huge stretch and an insult to living beings to call this intelligence.
But there's a great deal of money to be made on this idea we've been chasing for decades now, so here we are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its really weird how you all are begging to be replaced by llms, you think if agentic workflows get good enough you're going to keep your job? Or not have your salary reduced by 50%? If Agents get good enough it's not going to build some profitable startup for you (or whatever people think they're doing with the llm slot machines) because that implies that anyone else with access to that agent can just copy you, its…
Most folks don't seem to think that far down the line, or they haven't caught on to the reality that the people who actually make decisions will make the obvious kind of decisions (ex: fire the humans, cut the pay, etc) that they already make.
but forgot there's likely someone above them making exactly the same one about them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, did you give a test for them to validate the code? I had a test failing because I introduced a silly comparison bug (> instead of <), and claude 4.6 opus figured out it wasn't the test the problem, but the code and fixed the bug (which I had missed).
There was a test and a very useful golang error that literally explain what was wrong. The model tried implementing a solution, failed and when I pointed out the error most of them just rolled back the "solution"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might call me crazy, but at least in 2024, consumers spent ~1% less of their income on expenses than 2019[2], which suggests that 2024 is more affordable than 2019. This is from the BLS consumer survey report released in dec[1] [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/consumer-expenditures/2019/ Prices are never going back to 2019 numbers though
That's an improper analysis. First off, it's dollar-averaging every category, so it's not "% of income", which varies based on unit income. Second, I could commit to spending my entire life with constant spending (optionally inflation adjusted, optionally as a % of income), by adusting quality of goods and service I purchase. So the total spending % is not a measure of affordability.
This part of a wider trend too, where economic stats don't align with what people are saying. Which is most likley explained by the economic anomaly of the pandemic skewing peoples perceptions.