Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

jonready.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 534 posts

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#151

Post by theLiminator »

SwellJoe wrote: post #116
hedora wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What moat? There are multiple companies providing pareto-optimal frontier models, and it takes O(10) people to build one of these things. The rest is capital intensive, and the price will approach the cost of production over time. Thinking this is a profitable endeavor is equivalent to claiming coal plants have good margins because boilers are expensive.

I think we agree? What moat? You answered yourself: "capital intensive" But, history says the supercomputer of today will fit in your pocket in a few years. They've bought up all the RAM and GPUs, which pushes the capital requirements upward for everyone else. But, they can't corner the market forever, there are too many competing interests. AMD and Intel keep making new GPUs and APUs. The memory makers can't just se…

> But, history says the supercomputer of today will fit in your pocket in a few years.

I don't think this will be true in the same time span anymore. Each miniaturization is costing more and more money.

Perhaps they'll come up with exotic fundamental improvements, but I don't think the rate of improvement of compute/watt will match the previous decades.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#152

Post by kingcauchy »

lwhi wrote: post #147

The part that disturbs me most, is that the model won't reveal you've reached the threshold. It's literally been designed to gaslight its users in these cases.

"We won't use this product to spy or build weapons but you'll have to trust us, but we're also going to intentionally lie to you when you break our terms of service but trust us."

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#153

Post by anankaie »

capevace wrote: post #142

has dario (or sam tbh) ever been thoroughly asked about the hypocrisy of them claiming distillation to be „theft“ vs. them training on the copyright of others? I’ve only seen him talk about one of those topics, but never together. I just can’t see how you can talk yourself out of that hypocrisy, if BS answers are properly followed up on (journalism!)

Moreover, the Library of Congress ruled that LLM outputs are not copyrightable, so technically, Anthropic has even less claim here.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#154

Post by porphyra »

prmph wrote: post #109

Wow, this is like saying: > If you buy a car from us, you agree not use it driving to and from work that involves automotive R&D that might compete with our product. And if our (heavily spying) car detects you are violating this, it will slow down to 20mph and cannot be made to go any faster, until we are sure the violation has ceased. Or > If you buy a laptop from us, you agree not to use it to study or acquire any…

If your car slows down to 20mph you'd instantly know. If Claude silently switches to dumb mode, you might not even realize.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#155

Post by ekidd »

hedora wrote: post #99
maxall4 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m very aware of this as well.

How do local models work? I’m specifically interested in things that run in the 32-128GiB space. (I don’t care about bio specifically; just trying to track when local models start surpassing cloud ones in some practical dimensions).

At different size ranges:

- Qwen3.6 27B runs quite nicely on a 32GB GPU, and it's a mostly usable coding agent. The biggest difference with a frontier model is that a 27B forces you work in chunks between 100-200k tokens, and to maintain a clear understanding of how your code works. If you try to vibecode without understanding, yeah, it's going to get ugly. Also, it's better at coding than many other tasks.

- DeepSeek V4 Flash is apparently quite nice if happen to have 256GB of RAM lying around, lol. Again, not a frontier model, but antirez really likes it.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#156

Post by windexh8er »

SauntSolaire wrote: post #114
windexh8er wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when you can actively choose to not use Anthropic. They think they have a moat from all of the IP they've stolen. Just wait until there's nothing more to steal and the laws eventually turn against them. And let's be honest about these companies. It is very much Dario and Sam and Sundar and Mark and Peter and Elon and... These are the choices they are making and hopefully they are held accountable both lega…

I don't think you understand the hypothetical being discussed

You're confusing 'didn't understand it' with 'didn't buy it.' Only one of those is a comprehension issue, and it's not mine.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#157

Post by Paracompact »

SauntSolaire wrote: post #117
prmph wrote: post #109

Wow, this is like saying: > If you buy a car from us, you agree not use it driving to and from work that involves automotive R&D that might compete with our product. And if our (heavily spying) car detects you are violating this, it will slow down to 20mph and cannot be made to go any faster, until we are sure the violation has ceased. Or > If you buy a laptop from us, you agree not to use it to study or acquire any…

Or "we'll ship our code as binary blobs so you can't reverse engineer it".. oh, wait

This impacts the functioning of the product, not the form of the product.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#159

Post by soraminazuki »

drowsspa wrote: post #148
variety8675 wrote: post #7

It is absolutely fine to distill the IP of everyone else, but you'd be violating the TOS to distill ours :)

Would be nice if people published the prompts, thoughts and responses of the LLMs together with the code, in order to fight against these restrictions... Instead of just publishing the final result and talking vaguely about how they prompted the LLM in a Hacker news comment or Twitter thread If LLMs are the new compilers those are the actual source code

Agreed with the need for transparency, but LLMs are anything but compilers. Compilers, by definition, produce semantically equivalent code from one language to another. If a tool's output lacks any defined semantics, it isn’t a compiler. Because how good is a "compiler" whose outputs are entirely undefined behavior?
Post reply on HN