101–110 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What makes you believe this? Simply, cut-throat competition. Given multiple nations are funding different AI-labs, quality of output and speed are one of the most important things.
How is nation-states funding private corporations "cut-throat competition"?
The difference is that in gambling 'the house always wins', but in our case we do make progress towards our goal of conquering the world with our newly minted apps.
The situation where this comparison holds is when vibe coding leads nowhere and you don't accomplish anything but just burn through tokens.
what kind of lame parties is the bluesky poster going to? is this a San Francisco thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's Anthropic's optimization target??? Getting you the right answer as fast as possible! What makes you believe this? The current trend in all major providers seem to be: get you to spin up as many agents as possible so that you can get billed more and their number of requests goes up. > Slot machines have variable reward schedules by design LLMs by all major providers are optimized used RLHF where they are opti…
> What makes you believe this? Simply, cut-throat competition. Given multiple nations are funding different AI-labs, quality of output and speed are one of the most important things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bill is unrelated to their cost. If they can produce answer in 1/10th of the token, they can charge 10x more per token, likely even more.
That is simply not true, token price is largely determined by the token price of their rival services (even before their own operational costs). If everybody else charges about $1 per millions of tokens, then they will also charge about $1 per millions of tokens (or slightly above/below) regardless of how many answers per token they can provide.
Gemini increased the same Flash's price by something like 5x IIRC when it got better.
what kind of lame parties is the bluesky poster going to? is this a San Francisco thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's Anthropic's optimization target??? Getting you the right answer as fast as possible! What makes you believe this? The current trend in all major providers seem to be: get you to spin up as many agents as possible so that you can get billed more and their number of requests goes up. > Slot machines have variable reward schedules by design LLMs by all major providers are optimized used RLHF where they are opti…
> What makes you believe this? Simply, cut-throat competition. Given multiple nations are funding different AI-labs, quality of output and speed are one of the most important things.
That said universe don't obligate us to think the cosmos is all about competition. Cooperation is always possible as a viable path, often with far more long term benefits at scale.
Competition is superfluous self inflict masochism.
I do think it can be addictive, but there are many things that are addictive that aren't gambling.
I think a better analogy is something like extreme sport, where people can get addicted to the point it can be harmful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This matches my experience using LLMs for science. Out of curiosity, I downloaded a randomized study and the CONSORT checklist, and asked Claude code to do a review using the checklist. I was really impressed with how it parsed the structured checklist. I was not at all impressed by how it digested the paper. Lots of disguised errors.
try codex 5.3. it's dry and very obviously AI; if you allow a bit of anthropomorphisation, it's kind of high-functioning autistic. it isn't an oracle, it'll still be wrong, but it's a powerful, completely different from claude tool.
After I read your comment, I gave Codex 5.3 the task of setting up an E2E testing skeleton for one of my repos, using Playwright. It worked for probably 45 minutes and in the end failed miserably: out of the five smoke tests it created, only two of them passed. It gave up on the other three and said they will need “further investigation”.
I then stashed all do that code and gave the exact same task to Opus 4.5 (not even 4.6), with the same prompt. After 15 mins it was done. Then I popped Codex’s code from the stash and asked Opus to look at it to see why the three m of the five tests Codex wrote didn’t pass. It looked at them and found four critical issues that Codex had missed. For example, it had failed to detect that my localhost uses https, so the the E2E suite’s API calls from the Vue app kept failing. Opus also found that the two passing tests were actually invalid: they checked for the existence of a div with #app and simply assumed it meant the Vue app booted successfully.
This is probably the dozenth comparison I’ve done between Codex and Opus. I think there was only one scenario where Codex performed equally well. Opus is just a much better model in my experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What makes you believe this? Simply, cut-throat competition. Given multiple nations are funding different AI-labs, quality of output and speed are one of the most important things.
How is nation-states funding private corporations "cut-throat competition"?
Private companies will turn towards the best, fastest, cheapest (or some average of them). Country borders don’t really matter. All labs are fighting to get the best thing out in the public for that reason, because winning comes with money, status, prestige, and actually changing the world. This kind of incentives are rare.