Prediction: in a few years, we will laugh at this hysteria and call it a moral panic.
Everyone should slow down AI development except for me
181–190 of 237 posts
Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Fable doesn't add additional value in your workplace, it means you aren't being ambitious enough in how you integrate agents into your workstream. Yes, it's probably comparable to 4.8 if you are just using it to write code and put up a couple pull requests. That's not where things are now.
You shouldn't be down voted, AI native companies have already moved up to the next level beyond writing individual PRs.
"AI Native" here meaning Companies where your token use isn't scrutinised/capped yet?
Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take the opposite here. If someone put in frontier AI models from like .... last june I guess? in a box and let me run it with "decent" token throughput I would be happy. I think it's worth acknowledging that the power of LLMs at this point is not really so much in the smarts, but in the coordination and the surrounding harness tech. "Written english" turning into sequences of commands[0]. The whole agentic "stu…
> If someone put in frontier AI models from like .... last june I guess? in a box and let me run it with "decent" token throughput I would be happy. You can have that! Qwen 3.8 Flash-Next is ~Opus 4.6 and runs nicely on a DGX Spark. And that’s just an architecture preview. The Qwen 4 family is expected to arrive this fall.
DGX Spark is a biiiiit costly but neat to hear!
Do you know what kinda throughput you’re getting on that kinda setup?
(I have a secondary problem of being “locked into” Claude Code by it being good enough for me, I’d probably need to investigate the other harnesses… my impression is other harnesses are a bit more aggressively OK with nuking your setup from orbit)
Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I figured they're just admitting AI models have plateaued and are coming up with some fake story about self restraint so they don't lose VC money
The models have not plateaued, and they are not even mildly close to any sort of ceiling. Right now the barrier is data and compute. Quality data can be created synthetically at an exponential rate as models improve. Humans are actively feeding them with private IP. Compute advancements will begin to skyrocket as we unlock photonic computing and materials science advancements and scale up chip fabs. This is also comp…
> Right now the barrier is data and compute.
Those are pretty significant barriers seeing as we're closed to/have exhausted all the data on the internet and most of those compute bottlenecks are a castle of sand of dodgy finance deals that are getting blocked by community action.
You say "synthetic data" but that's still vaporware right now in terms of being useful for model training. The good synthetic data uses are still grounded in real data and it's a coin flip on if it works well or not.
Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a pet project I have been working away on for some time that involves building GPU backends for various cards in Zig, lots of complex stuff in it. Lately I mostly use Opus 5, it can pretty reliably plug away at things but it does mess stuff up occasionally. For this codebase, Fable 5.1 was noticeably better at getting things right and doing things in a good reliable way. Of course, I can only use Fable for a b…
I really liked codex in the last few weeks, especially its ability to clean up after Claude's (prose) messes and do reviews. But in the last few days something seems to have happened that made Codex's models massively stupider (for what I am doing). Really weirdly, it suddenly refused to even run tests it previously wrote itself (and previously ran), because of some false positive about cybersecurity. That by itself…
That's the case for open weights models. Hosted Deepseek Flash 731 copy isn't changing randomly one day because the parent company decided to change it.
Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me
#186A lot of people in this comments section seem to be against this, i genuinely don't get it? Why? Do you think the current state of affairs is GOOD? That if we let companies create a mind that is, AS OF TODAY, able to solve problems no human in history has solved, with no regulation, things will end up good for us? We need some sort of regulations, some sort of method to help ensure the thing we are creating ends up g…
> Do you think the current state of affairs is GOOD?
Chinese labs releasing open weights models is good.
All of these independent harnesses and model router services are good.
The pricing of memory and accelerators sucks at the moment but hopefully we will see cool local inference computing if memory and accelerator prices normalize.
OpenAI scooping the Navier Stokes problem from researchers already using OpenAI is bad. People conflating OpenAI's team of researchers and extraordinary computing resources as being equivalent to "ChatGPT, solve the Navier Stokes problem" is silly.
OpenAI and Anthropic coming up with non sense tests and letting their agents hack services is ridiculous and they should be charged with computer fraud and abuse crimes.
I think a lot of it is interesting and the bad stuff seems squarely in the domain of OpenAI and Anthropic.
Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
But notably the amish don't preclude the rest of us from existing. Some subset of humans could turn their attention away from AI but it would presumably still exist and continue to be developed. I can't think of any economically beneficial technologies that we've collectively ignored. If you manage to come up with a counterexample then that's an opportunity to make some money for yourself. It's a fundamentally unstab…
Supersonic passenger aircraft were operated profitably and no longer exist. There’s levels of R&D required for many technologies where the question goes beyond could this be profitable to what are the risk vs reward that this specific project will succeed.
But after accounting for maintenance & etc were they more profitable than sinking the equivalent amount of money into something else, such as slower aircraft? Notably there are currently efforts to develop new supersonic passenger liners.
Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me
#188Whatever happened to Musk's plan for data centers in orbit? That seemed silly at the time. It offers a way to get out from under restrictions imposed by national governments, which might make it worthwhile.
> Whatever happened to Musk's plan for data centers in orbit?
The technology to do it is not actually real yet. He was just blowing smoke.
Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right, US can do nothing on AI. After all, it doesn't have the shipbuilding capacity or even beat sandal-wearing islamists.
Being sarcastic isn't going to solve the problem but you're obviously free to believe that the US is still in a position to call all the shots when it's evident to the rest of the world this isn't the case.
I’m just repeating your words back to you so hopefully you realize how ridiculous it sounds.
Also - I think you totally missed the point of the grandparent poster, which is that US will not let US companies slow down.
Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? My employer rolled back to opus 4.8 because 5 was expensive AND crap. Didnt even consider fable because it didn’t add any additional value. For most software eng and design work opus 4.6-4.8 just works fine. For everyday joe asking ai to plan a trip or home diy work even sonnet works fine. Any cybersecurity or other areas are niches that cannot support trillion $ valuations. What am I missing? Genuinely curio…
No idea what you are missing and yes, Opus is quite solid, but Fable is clearly way better for me. I just did a direct comparison, big change in a quite complex codebase. Same prompt for Opus, same for Fable. Fable clearly won and delivered very good results, while Opus delivered mediocre, so I did not let it finish. I expected both to fail and was prepared to do lots of manual steering, but not necessary with Fable…
"Opus delivered mediocre, so I did not let it finish"
Mediocre means average / middle of the pack. It sounds like its doing exactly what you would expect nothing more. Why would you stop it? Why would you need exceptional?