311–320 of 740 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had Fable bail on me because I used the word autopilot on a project. Changed to something unrelated, and off we went.
I haven’t hit the Fable guardrails a single time after substantial usage. And I’m working on a ML project (a game AI). I don’t doubt people are hitting it… shrugs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As Anthropic does this, OpenAI Is giving everybody resets like every other day now on Twitter. I'm strongly considering biting the bullet and just ditching my $200/month Claude Code plan for the Codex one instead, especially because I keep running into my weekly limits (even sticking to Opus.)
Where do you get those? I got about 5 resets in July but none since then
Non-LLM user here. Why? Apart from the ecological issues, I'm very uncomfortable giving my organisation's crown jewels to {random_internet__corp}. Look at the lengths they go to for training data - 10M for Spirit's call logs? Destroying millions of obscure books to scan them? They make meth-heads look scrupulous. Your prompts, especially if they contain your entire codebase, are _way_ more data-rich than an airline p…
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…
If you are disproving Jacobian Conjecture it makes sense to be on SOTA, but for writing Golang and Typescript, faster sol/fable/opus class models are imo more likely to get user interest than the latest frontier.
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…
> What I don't see is vast areas of industry finding $10s to $100s of billions of value in LLMs. Translation between languages. That value dwarfs all programming value that can be had. Economically, culturally, scientifically, spiritually.
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.
Using them for coding makes it easy to self check its work (assuming those pieces of work are "verifiable").
As proofreading will still need to happen, what do you think the appetite for lawyers is to do this kind of work? Do you think it will drive fees down significantly? Empower younger lawyers at firms who probably are the ones doing this checking for the partners? (Or will that just create a further divide).
I'm genuinely asking as I am not in law but all my family is and it's nice to see someone here that's thought about the impacts in that space.
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…
>You don't feel they want to give you a dependable service for an, albeit premium, price. It's a constant bargaining game We all know that the subscription prices are not at all sustainable for these providers. You all do, right? Yes, they're struggling to segment the market and find a way to make money, and that basically relies upon emptying the pockets of whales. As someone enjoying a hilariously subsidized Max pl…
I don’t think it is fair to expect from people to know or understand this.
If you buy something or subscribe to a service there is a price tag on it.
You get X for Y amount of price.
That is how consumers conditioned for decades. They do not care what is your customer acquisition strategy. If Antrophic cannot provide reliable services on that price, customers will be unsatisfied.
My company still hasn’t been able to deploy wide access to Fable because it’s not available on a ZDR basis. This wasn’t mentioned in the article but I imagine this factor is not irrelevant.
>ZDR Zero Data Retention, for the uninitiated readers in this thread. The no-ZDR is clearly to permit surveillance. I would be shocked if NSA wasn't all up in these SOTA model providers' systems. Never subscribe!