291–300 of 740 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is also now actively discounting their model. They just offered a free month to users. Both companies seem spooked by what I have to imagine is slowing user growth.
Where is the free month offer going on? Are you talking about usage resets?
For many coders including myself, LLM based coding agents work well enough to be useful, and in some cases worth paying for. What I don't see is vast areas of industry finding $10s to $100s of billions of value in LLMs. There's no lint or compiler that can check for correctly constructed contracts. So LLMs, which should be useful to law firms, incur a lot more manual checking of their work than coding agents. Less fo…
While there's no linter for writing contracts, my experience (as a commercial lawyer) is that frontier LLMs are far better and error checking and far quicker at writing than the average senior lawyer. The main thing holding back further deployment (in my jurisdiction) are concerns around data residency, privilege and how fundamentally it will break an industry that is so heavily reliant on time based billing.
I compared insurance quotes last week. Needed cover for 2 brands, 1 company. Opus jumps up and down saying both brands need listing on the policy schedule. Human broker said not.
I told opus and it's the usual "thanks you're right" bollocks because it bothered to read in more detail and found that all business activities are covered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social issues aside, that's a tiny slice of the economics of AI. Just by nature of how often it's used etc. You need workloads for AI be cost effective: software, automation etc.
International trade is a giant sector already, and potentially much bigger than that, now that LLM assisted translation makes it easy to offer your products and services in any language, or make complicated and sensitive deals without a common language. Hackers always rage and down vote every time I mention this, because they are unable to see beyond their small world. Why didn't they learn that their part of the int…
The main problem is I think you're assuming because the current translation market is large (I'm just going to assume it's ~100B in size just from a cursory search), then it will remain large with LLMs. If LLMs are much cheaper than humans, even with a lot of growth in translation volume the total spend may not compensate for it (again most of the volume will probably be using almost free models?). Another is assuming that because something is valuable you can charge a lot for it. Like, oxygen from air is extremely valuable to us. If oxygen somehow depleted we would die almost instantly. It does not mean everyone goes around purchasing oxygen or even less that you can charge absurd amounts for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most people want to not care. We want our AI like electricity I was with you until this part where the metaphor completely falls apart :p https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/resid...
I was going to say that the model of the electricity market OP is talking about hasn't existed in 15 years and it's only getting worse with more intermittent renewables entering the market. And no, batteries are not the answer because physics doesn't care how much greenwashing lobbyists do.
P.S. batteries are the answer, hope this helps
I'm on the $200 plan (work pays) and I also have the $20 OpenAI plan (I pay) and keep a balance on OpenRouter.
There is nothing as good as Fable, not even close.
I recently had it run a 18 hour autonomous rebuild of a project (moving from Spark to Pandas for performance/data size trade off issues).
It orchestrated Opus sub-agents flawlessly for 18 hours. It even did a great job of managing the number of agents to keep them within the 5 hour budgets (I think I had to restart it twice).
After 18 hours I ran a /simplify, /code-review, /simplify cycle which went for another 6 hours.
2 billion tokens (mix of Opus and Fable), 24 hours of continuous coding and a bug free outcome. It would have cost $2000 at API prices and worth every cent.
Fable's ability to keep other models on track while working on these long horizon goals is so much better than anything else.
Far from neutered, I've never had a cyber refusal, and Fable's English is actually readable (unlike Opus 5).
As an aside: while I hate reading Opus 5 English it still is a noticeably better model than Sol in my experience.
But I could handle losing Opus5 is I got Sol instead. But there is nothing even close to Fable.
Where Anthropic f'ed up was treating their monetization the way they treat model training. Turns out that success in experimentation is not transferrable. They have tried to find the highest that the market pays for sota models; however, on the consumer side, this is just too confusing and unsettling: "You can only use Fable for a week as a part of your plan" "Be ready! You have to start paying per token!" "Nevermind…
Yea, I don’t have any interest in trying Fable because I’m not interested in the BS that’s going to come with it. I’m at the point where I need stability and predictability. I want the B- student who shows up everyday rather than the A+ student that’s unreliable.
Wow the sentiment here is so negative. I'm on the $200 plan (work pays) and I also have the $20 OpenAI plan (I pay) and keep a balance on OpenRouter. There is nothing as good as Fable, not even close. I recently had it run a 18 hour autonomous rebuild of a project (moving from Spark to Pandas for performance/data size trade off issues). It orchestrated Opus sub-agents flawlessly for 18 hours. It even did a great job…
The US government basically told them they can't sell "Fable" and so they aren't. That's probably 90% of the story. Once the government stepped in, their 5th generation was effectively killed. They either had to lock it up (Mythos), neuter it (Fable), or leave people with the perception they were overpaying for a weaker model (Opus 5). Hopefully Anthropic has learned to anticipate this risk and has a plan for rollout…
But this isn't what happened? It was only a couple of months ago! How can we be getting this completely backwards already!
Fable was aready what they were selling to the general public, and that is what the US government stopped them selling (not Mythos!)
Anthropic tuned the already existing classifier to handle the use case the government highlighted and then they went back to selling it.
They actually loosened the restrictions on ML-programming using it too.
I use Fable as much as I can and I've never had a cyber refusal for it.
Anthropic’s issue is churn because of the peak verbosity vomit coming out of Opus 5/Mythos/Fable. What the hell did they train it on. The sane model is still Opus 4.6.
https://x.com/wolframs91/status/2090159644849353058 What if: - Opus 4.6 was the last Opus generation that got a lot of use by Anthropic's own employees - After that they primarily used Mythos internally - 4.7, 4.8 and 5 were RLAIFd by Mythos "teachers" - Hence why 4.6 is the last Opus gen who doesn't report back like a robot wanting to cover every potential hole another AI system would've spotted and criticized - Hen…
Worth noting that Fable (ie, Mythos) is actually nice to interact with.