141–150 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buying a camera or car is different from paying a subscription, right? Different expectations
No, I have never bought a subscription and then expected it to get arbitrarily upgraded any time a higher tier was introduced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Max” leads me to believe I have the maximum level of access
And the prostitute really does love you and Your Call really Is Important To Us. That's a little snarkier than strictly appropriate in this forum but you cannot seriously and in good faith say that this is the first time you've seen advertisements 'exagerrate' the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I appreciate the desire to have the best: > Or I guess the inverse question: why aren't they allowed that audit? There's undeniably a lot of unsecured software in the world. Given that ID verification is hard and these companies are clearly new at it (or don't understand the implications of it, cough Worldcoin's eye-scanning orbs cough), which is worse: (1) sufficiently good AI* is released to everyone: critica…
1 assumes that some "private entity" gets to decide what is crucial infrastructure and what is not, what gets the opportunity to be patched and what doesn't. I'm not ok with that and don't know why anyone would be.
Even more so they are getting push back from the government (good job electing idiots) that said models are a security risks.
But until then the company can charge/give access to whoever they want for however much they want except in the cases the law says no.
And if you don't like it raise a trillion dollars and make your own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Soon, very soon, if you will need something useful, like medical advice, financial advice, you will be told that, well, ok, but you need to pay for an "extended license" that gonna be in thousands of dollars per month, otherwise you need to hire someone who paid that money. The only hope are Chinese models, as Chinese commies are playing a different game as long as they are behind the flagship models (but it will cha…
That sounds too dire. My suspicion is building a model either as a derivative or brand new is a solved problem. There are indeed capital constraints today but would wager that over the horizon those go down. If one business is restricting access to something great over the medium term other companies will step up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I appreciate the desire to have the best: > Or I guess the inverse question: why aren't they allowed that audit? There's undeniably a lot of unsecured software in the world. Given that ID verification is hard and these companies are clearly new at it (or don't understand the implications of it, cough Worldcoin's eye-scanning orbs cough), which is worse: (1) sufficiently good AI* is released to everyone: critica…
1 assumes that some "private entity" gets to decide what is crucial infrastructure and what is not, what gets the opportunity to be patched and what doesn't. I'm not ok with that and don't know why anyone would be.
The only two alternative to a private entity making this decision are a government making this decision, or nobody making this decision, the latter of which is equivalent to both government and a private entity making the decision to do (1).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds too dire. My suspicion is building a model either as a derivative or brand new is a solved problem. There are indeed capital constraints today but would wager that over the horizon those go down. If one business is restricting access to something great over the medium term other companies will step up.
I think every business wants to bill on value not usage. That's where the real money is made. If a diagnosis is worth $100 and takes $1 worth of tokens you want to bill as close to $100 as you can. Right now they're billing $1 and barely making money.
If there's competition from LLMs it's going to drive down the cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The company has no way of knowing > That's what KYC is for. No, KYC has nothing to do with that problem. KYC doesn't help at all here. > I'm not in the US, nor America for that matter, I'm in the EU. Same here.
> No, KYC has nothing to do with that problem. KYC doesn't help at all here. that's a bold statement. how does it not help solve the problem? what is a better solution?
How easy would it be for criminal orgs to setup legitimate looking fronts to pass these KYC checks?
They're releasing ever more powerful models with stronger offensive capabilities. So do they have to help bolster the defense of all existing software, just... forever?
If we advance both the offence and defense with each new release, is this sustainable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think every business wants to bill on value not usage. That's where the real money is made. If a diagnosis is worth $100 and takes $1 worth of tokens you want to bill as close to $100 as you can. Right now they're billing $1 and barely making money.
What makes the diagnosis "worth" $100? Right now it requires a highly paid human which sets a floor on the cost. If there's competition from LLMs it's going to drive down the cost.
The opinion of the customer paying for it
No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government, while Anthropic's (their competitor) model has been pulled weeks prior by the administration for 'security' reasons. It certainly has nothing to do with openAI's co-founders donating to the current administrations election fund, are actively supporting the DoW war efforts of…
Maybe if Anthropic haven't called it too dangerous for public things could be different?