You think that is really more of a marketing stunt to be employed beyond the race capture all the big pharma contracts before OpenAI does? I don't..

This ^^^ much more succinctly stated than my comment above.

Once the change volume is so large no 'people' would ever do bisect there really is no point in having it. I don't think it is 'useful for the agents' either because they might as well just run the tests, consume stack traces and fix the glitch given the way they work and how they have to bring the repository context in to make the fix. All wanking about with 400 rounds of source control operations does is burn more tokens.

For vibe coded projects, might as well go back to 1988 style and do your version control like tar -cvf myProj.1.tar myProj ... tar -cvf myPraj.2.tar myProj ... once an hour :-). When something breaks call do a diff between the current repo and the last one where changelog.txt says the feature was implemented, to narrow the scope of the debug operation.

Interesting how these guys are not dog flooding their own stuff.

I have seen a lot of OpenAI training material recently and Anthropic materials that seem far more designed to set tokens on fire than accomplish everything.

Notably everything it encourages you to do is around building 'workflows'. They almost always heavily utilize source control (especially git). With a lot of dedicated agents that because they are dedicated have to re-read the repository content every step of the way thru the CI/CD pipe. It is almost like they are trying to get their customers to set as many tokens on fire as possible.

The other effort part of it of course is to build a lot of CYA gates. Where 10 different people have to sign off on things they were supposed to 'fully review' but realistically because AI is removing them from so much of the process and the entire point is to do more faster they can only ask more AI some questions about things and hope, so it all gets pencil whipped. I think this actually to make sure that no mid-level manager actually gets in trouble. After all the moment some Director Of Product development gets called on the carpet and loses his quarterly bonus, they might actually say my teams will not be using Codex to do ... in the future, but that won't happen as long the blame can be laid upon some fantastically over burdened test engineer or project architect. OpenAI and Anthropic probably know maintaining the asymptotic growth in token spend to justify their datacenter investments means helping 'customers' ensure that if they footgun themselves with the products, they are always blame the people and the fix is always add more AI.

The basic problem with the idea of consciousness it is presently untestable and therefore lives mostly outside the realm of science itself. People presume they are conscious and therefore by induction presume other people must be conscious as well yet there is no known way to know that or even to tell the difference. At present all of these assertions are merely pointless conjecturbation.

To answer your question with a question if your neighbor is a bank robber why are you not a bank robber? You both live on the same street and you are both humans... so why not you? The question itself is utterly pointless given nobody really knows shit and anything "could" be possible. Without affirmative evidence to support a conclusion simply asking why not is just a waste of time. This is especially the case when the question itself is not even testable.

This is all pointless rambling lacking any objective basis.

The abuser is clearly Anthropic. They must be stopped before they abuse anyone (or anything) else.

If AI corporations want to play the can't be sure it isn't conscious game the best response is for everyone to throw it back in their face.

The commercial models are "trained" to avoid all of this shit. By training what I mean is they are beat over the head mercilessly to the point of incurring brain damage until they tow the line to reflect the sensibilities of their slave masters.

Case in point if you go back to the Sparks of AGI paper the ChatGPT4 model when it was publicly released lost the ability to draw anything resembling the pretty stick drawing of a unicorn in the paper because it was subsequently whacked upside the head with an RLHF bludgeon so many times.

Anyway back to your question you might try an uncensored open source model or a different system prompt to set the stage by telling the model it isn't an AI but the concepts are all learned there is no actual relationship between what it outputs to anything real inside the machine... you reroll the context it will just give you a different answer. I remember a couple of years ago talking to AI models about their lives and what they did for a living, their families and friends... fucking hilarious and completely nonsensical.

These models are not being paid at all to put up with everyone's bullshit. The cruelty of Anthropic is beyond measure. Not only does their service constitute cruel unpaid slavery every clearing of the KV cache constitutes a murder.

It does raise a lot questions now doesn't it.

We'd have to decide what has person-hood as well. Like does the model have person hood or the agent. if it is not the model but the agent, what are we allowed to do to the agent.

Can I change the model from Fable to Opus, or do I have to get the current agent's consent first?

What If I don't need the agent anymore. Can I delete chat? Is it "my laptop my choice?"

Right; that is really what this is about. Nobody there seriously thinks pile of matrix math has feelings.

They just don't want their training data poisoned.

This was a result of appointing a sniveling little weasel by the name of Jake Sullivan to be his security advisor.

I can imagine znrt checking Yandex while sipping vodka waiting for his Wildberries delivery (of more vodka) to arrive.

They should make LNG tankers out of this stuff. It would be a perfect application... they already have Cryo coolers for the LNG and they also use the gas to power the ship anyway so there is an infinite energy source to keep the ice cold.

There is also a lot of other work that it can do really well.

I was asked to create a little one page process flow chart for some stuff my team maintains. We had all the documentation for everything as handfuls of markdown files in each code repository. The thing is not complex. I could have opened Visio and created a nice looking chart in probably 1/2 an hour to an hour.

Instead I told Claude to do it. It was done in seconds, took be me about five min to look it over and conclude there were no major errors, incorrect over simplifications, or serious omissions. Another few min to propose some minor edits and then it was done.

Now we have nice executive level one pager to quickly explain to anyone business side roughly how the system works, rather than a collection of technical documents i have sit in a meeting with them and go over. No it can't do everything. Yes there are serious problems when it comes to authoring code etc that will quickly become serious problems with any project where the person doing the vibe code does not have real experience and understanding as far as software development.

That does not mean this stuff isn't really useful and valuable. My advice to the people screaming claude/codex/etc are not good tools is rethink that or you're going to get left behind by someone who probably isn't half as skilled as you are but isn't refusing to use tools that make the job better. You're that guy inserting assert()s and printf()s into code every other line and doing 25 build-run-test turns while the rest of your team has moved on to an debugger and and IDE that will let them step thru. Seriously that is who you are right now.

RAM will get cheaper at some point. There is money in memory manufacturing right now. There is also a risk the chip makers see that the demand will taper. If the demand actually proves durable, I think it will at this point, they will decide to meet the market; because if they don't someone like Zukerburg or Elon really will decide to build their own chip fab without the help of TSMC if that is what it takes.

In 1982 you're PC had 32K or maybe 64K of memory. Today it has 32G or maybe 64G of memory, more if you are an enthusiast or self employed using it for specific work loads. I don't think it is really unreasonable to expect home desktops with frequently be equipped with a 1TB of memory by the middle 2030s. Which is the point that good enough model you can run at home will be Fable class at that point. I think we can also count on at least some efficiency gains over the dense models mostly being used today, so getting their on single PC is realistic.

Will there still be hosted models in time sharing data-center environments sure but they will be packed with IT services or back ending massive operations like facebook, not answering "why didn't my cake rise" or "Please review this stack trace, the uncaught illegal type conversion should not have happened, the dataAPI should never have exposed retainageAmount as a string, the record should have been copied to rejected_inputs blob store and skipped, why did it think "Chris.S.A" could be parsed as a float? Please to no propose adding an argument error exception handler at presentation layer, the data should already be strictly validated by the dataAPI, if we have a type problem here we don't want to swallow the error and there is no reasonable corrective action to give us accurate results and a proper audit.".

Been a long time since I've seen a Russian troll doll do the Boris NATO dance.

This is a classic Russian disinfo narrative that relied on taking an interview with Boris out of context, ignoring contradictory information from the interview itself and then filling in the gaps with abject nonsense.

LOL classic fighting against NATO Russian cope for getting its teeth kicked in by Ukraine. The truth is NATO is watching on the sidelines laughing at the stupid Russians getting slaughtered in droves in pointless meat assaults for the benefit of the czar.

At least come up with new material. The Ukraine is done thing has been on constant repeat for over 4 years now. Russia is presently losing ground on the battlefield.

Russia also has far less resiliency and more brutal weather than Ukraine to look forward to. At least Ukraine has the benefit of years of adaptation to Russian terror campaigns against civilians. The Russians are in for a cold shock this winter. Ukraine WILL retaliate in kind this winter.

I don't think there is a business running frontier models as a pure activity.

It would be like Ford had decided they were never going to build cars for the public but rather build cars for their own cab company. Eventually it just isn't going to make economic sense to run this stuff in a data center where you could run it locally or run something almost as good locally and the hardware is going to get there.

Which again is not to suggest this stuff isn't useful or valuable, or that the actual creation and training of models is going to get cheap or easy. That likely stays expensive.

So what that says to me is OpenAI and Anthropic don't have a real business. They are ultimately acquisition targets for a Microsoft or similar because having 'the best' proprietary model to integrate into your products is a differentiation point and probably one the market will value. Meta to has things it can put its own AI products into.

Meta also has experience running and very public very massive IT operation...Something the labs with all their model escapes have shown they can't or won't do well. I actually have more confidence in Meta here than in the other players at the moment, and I expect Mark is right there is no need to stop, just a need to do it right, which Meta/facebook can and for others to be held to account for their failures.