161–170 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like if you showed current frontier models to someone 10 years ago, they'd probably call it AGI. Does AGI have a clear definition or is it just a pair of goalposts on wheels?
They would until you showed them the jagged edges. Like those short videos of the guy asking the model to count up to 100, for example, where it politely agrees but never actually gets there
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html > One thing that should be learned from the bitter lesson is the great power of general purpose methods, of methods that continue to scale with increased computation even as the available computation becomes very great. The two methods that seem to scale arbitrarily in this way are search and learning.
Right, and if you come up with an efficiency gain that makes scaling better, e.g. a 50% reduction in required compute. Or even asymptotic improvements e.g. moving from quadratic to linear. Then you're much much better off. There is nothing about the bitter lesson that says just be dumb and pour money into a hole, you still have to invent the methods to scale well, and being under immense pressure with constraints see…
I’m not sure how well the analogy holds up, or if there’s anything to be learned from it though.
there is just not enough resources right now, US sales block is working
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yep. the word they use is probably 克制 or self-restraint. no need to raise so much cash if you can't use it. in his article he talks about the negative aspects of getting everything you want. (all the money, brightest minds, biggest share in AI) etc. he says that these are the things that will cause a company to fail.
I shouldn't win too hard, because then I'll lose?
A lot of people here are saying that chinese open weight models are state-sponsored. If it's so, why would deepseek seek a fundraising?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eventually you'll have a model you can't distill, at which point the frontier labs will take off.
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, and if you come up with an efficiency gain that makes scaling better, e.g. a 50% reduction in required compute. Or even asymptotic improvements e.g. moving from quadratic to linear. Then you're much much better off. There is nothing about the bitter lesson that says just be dumb and pour money into a hole, you still have to invent the methods to scale well, and being under immense pressure with constraints see…
It reminds me a bit of the tyranny of the rocket equation. You can always scale your fuel to get a little more delta V, with ever diminishing returns. …but for something like a DEEP space/interstellar mission, it almost always pays to wait a few more years for a faster propulsion system because you’ll get there fastest by always delaying your launch and chasing better technology. I’m not sure how well the analogy hol…
Certainly applies more general imho. Constrained by some resource -> invest resources elsewhere, and/or invest in reducing the constraint(s) encountered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They want to achieve AGI first because, once it is achieved, no one knows what the world will look like.
I doubt this is the case. It should be common knowledge at least among the people building these things that a true AGI isn’t possible with LLMs. Unless I’ve missed some advancement?
Everything in this transcript reads so very different from what megalomaniacs in charge of Anthropic/OAI have to say
Not sure why people keep lumping OAI and Anthropic together. Really, Anthropic are the evil ones. You can make the case OAI are evil too if you want, but Anthropic are very clearly significantly worse and they aren't even in the same ballpark. Notice how OAI signed the recent open-source/open-weights letter with all of the other big tech companies, but Anthropic are the only ones who didn't? Notice how their employee…
Recently, I discovered that if you berate Claude, it will refuse to continue to work. At some point it will "end the conversation" meaning you can't use anything within the context and have to start a new one .
I was amazed by it. Turns out:
https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations
https://www.anthropic.com/research/exploring-model-welfare
> We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs, now or in the future. However, we take the issue seriously, and alongside our research program we’re working to identify and implement low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible.
These people are zealots. And I find it to be the most dangerous combination: popular ideologues with a ton of money.
It really lends flavor to this excerpt from the less than reputable nypost:
https://nypost.com/2026/06/25/business/anthropics-weirdo-ceo...
> Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has been replaced by his co-founder Tom Brown at high-stakes White House meetings – where the artificial-intelligence giant’s outspoken boss was reportedly “being a weirdo,” according to a report.
> Amodei and other top Anthropic workers raced to Washington after the US government slapped the AI giant’s new “Mythos” and “Fable” bots with strict foreign export controls – but Amodei was difficult to talk to and didn’t listen to officials’ concerns, Wired reported.
> “Tom Brown is not being a weirdo like Dario and can actually engage,” one person familiar with the calls told the outlet.
Anthropic is dangerous.