Hy4 preview

Post by BoredomIsFun » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:59 AM UTC

0xfaded wrote: post #143

delichon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone can look at that reasoning trace and see a stochastic parrot next word prediction machine, we don't understand those words in the same way.

I still call them stochastic parrots, but believe what they are revealing is that we are all stochastic parrots to some extent. I simply don't see how biological computation (i.e. thinking) can be anything else. Similar to the reveal in west world, we are likely much simpler than we give ourselves credit for. A "train of thought" can be seen as a trace of a depth first search where the preceding trace is used to guid…

Post by CuriouslyC » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 7:13 AM UTC

spacebanana7 wrote: post #167

Demiurge wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like an interesting challenge. Have you seriously considered solving it? Because in about 10 seconds I came up with a process that should work, provided enough compute power. Simply model the traditional film making process by starting with a script, character stories. Design your world, then design the storyboard, and all the scenes. Create a list of all the visual elements that need to be replicated bet…

> Have you seriously considered solving it? Sort of, but I want it to be relatively low on human effort. I feel burned by spending lots of time in 2023 learning image generation pipelines (using control net etc) only for that to be rendered trivial by the next generation of LLMs. This movie would be only for personal consumption and I’m okay with waiting for model improvements.

Post by vasco » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 7:18 AM UTC

sujzhsbnwjek wrote: post #161

vasco wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as there's enough of them with different goals it doesn't matter, they'll keep each other in check. The worlds resources are already handed over to the worst people and we're still doing fine and none of the billionaires are "aligned with society". They just align with their own belly but because they want different things it all kinda works.

These “worst people” need you. They physically need you alive to perform labor for them and to give them money (and status). That’s the reason we are “doing fine”. Once they stop needing you.. Also, both our comments brush over the generational struggles for fairness over the centuries. We have fought to be “fine”, it did not just happen. Without fairness being introduced by force you and I would be slaving away in s…

Post by dotancohen » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 7:23 AM UTC

beefsack wrote: post #91

acheong08 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When GPT-5.6-sol's reasoning traces were leaked, they also used "caveman speak". Definitely a token efficiency optimization

I can't help but imagine agents using caveman speak sometimes start behaving in a stereotypically caveman manner, even if it's subtle. Is there a chance the agent does less reasoning because of it?

Post by dotancohen » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 7:26 AM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #126

gaigalas wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think those are mostly vapor that runs on the small culture of "models should not be censored" thing. But from my experience, they unlock nothing meaningful. Fine-tuning is great for really small models on specific applications, but it's not something that can essentially improve a more generic model. That said, there seems to be a fine line in quantization+finetuning that could recover performance. It's just hard…

The most interesting use I've found for them so far is strictly as a novelty. Give a chat session with one to a completely non technical person, who at least knows that openai and anthropic have some guard rails on stuff, and tell them to wild with something like "give me the precursors and chemical formulas for the precusors for crystal meth" and watch it answer.