251–259 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wheee, great way to lock in incumbents even more or lock out the EU from startups
Welcome to the lovely world of regulation, enjoy your stay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but if the less strong model has low false positives you can just route them in order of strength
That's a very big "if".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, I needed Claude 4’s help to parse your response. The critique was not too kind to your abbreviated arguments that current systems are not able to gauge the complexity of a prompt and the resources needed to address a question.
It feels like the rant of someone upset that their decades of formal logic approach to AI become a dead end. I see this semi-regularly: futile attempts at handwaving away the obvious intelligence by some formal argument that is either irrelevant or inapplicable. Everything from thermodynamics — which applies to human brains too — to information theory. Grey-bearded academics clinging to anything that might float to r…
Who do you think is going to be successful, those who realize the limitations and strength of a system and leverage them, or those who are complacent, with a unwarranted self-satisfaction accompanied by unawareness of actual risks or deficiencies of a particular system?
IMHO they are always going to be too complex to know everything about a models of this size, but there are areas we do know their limits or the limits of computation in general.
But feel free to stay on your high horse and call people names and see how well that works out for you.
I find it interesting, how OpenAI came out with a $200 plan, Anthropic did $100 and $200, then Gemini ups it to $250, and now Grok is at $300. OpenAI is the only one that says "practically unlimited" and I have never hit any limit on my ChatGPT Pro plan. I hit limits on Claude Max (both plans) several times. Why are these companies not upfront about what the limits are?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 99% of programming is repetitive plumbing Even IF that were true (and I'd argue that it is NOT, and it's people who believe that and act that way who produce the tangled messes of spiderweb code that are utterly opaque to public searches and AI analysis -- the supposed "1%"), if even as low as 1% of the code I interacted with was the kind of code that required really deep thought and analysis, it could easily ballo…
> Even IF that were true (and I'd argue that it is NOT) Can you share what these "hard problems" are that > 1% of developers are working on?
Lately most of the code I write has been through LLMs and I find them an enormous productivity booster overall, but despite the benchmarks they're not expert human level quite yet, and they need a LOT of coaxing to produce production quality code.
As far as things LLMs are bad at, I think it's mainly the long tail. I'm not sure there's one singular thing that >1% of programmers work on that LLMs suck at, but I think there are thousands of different weird sub-specialties that almost no one is working on and very little public code exists for, thus LLMs are not good at them yet.
Been using Gemini for a few months, somehow it's gotten much, much worse in that time. Hallucinations are very common, and it will argue with you when you point it out. So, don't have much confidence.
Is the problem mainly with tool use ? and are you using it through AI studio or through the API ?. I've found that it hallucinates tool use for tools that aren't available and then gets very confident about the results.
Kinda just got stuck in a self-confident loop that time. Other times the output is just far worse than Claude for similar use cases, where a couple months back it was stronger, at least in my subjective experience.
Been using Gemini for a few months, somehow it's gotten much, much worse in that time. Hallucinations are very common, and it will argue with you when you point it out. So, don't have much confidence.
I feel the same, but cannot measure the effect in any context benchmark like fiction.livebench. Are they aggressively quantizing, or are our expectations silently increasing ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience with chat, Flash has gotten much, much better. It's my go-to model even though I'm paying for Pro. Pro is frustrating because it too often won't search to find current information, and just gives stale results from before its training cutoff. Flash doesn't do this much anymore. For coding I use Pro in Gemini CLI. It is amazing at coding, but I'm actually using it more to write design docs, decomp mul…
interesting out of all "thinking models," I struggle with Gemini the most for coding. Just can't make it perform. I feel like they silently nerfed it over the last months.