It’s filling in a lot of the holes, but it’s putting a very convincing paper cover over the ones it misses. So it’s very hard to find the ones it didn’t fill, better hope your most valuable customers don’t walk over the paper ones!
Sometimes, even usually, evolution finds a “local maximum” of effectiveness. Where the solution an organism finds is not optimal but it’s good enough for the organism to survive, even win.
So yeah I’m sure evolution didn’t create something perfect in the disease here but it survives long enough, and kills few-enough people slowly enough in the wild to survive
I mean my state has been making it illegal to download 3d models of pieces that could be used to make guns in a 3d printer
It’s a very broad law and likely not legal, but it’s going to take a long time to be fought through the courts, and in the meanwhile people will probably be arrested for creating or sharing a file for something that may be able to become a gun part.
You’re correct that it shouldn’t be a thing but unfortunately American society is not in a good place right now
Honestly it may be 50-50 purple in population, but the policies are what affect people the most. I’m not even worried about Democrat vs Republican, as I’m not associated to either party, and both have their share of crazy.
There are a number of laws in Texas that make it a non-option for many of us.
I don't even know how to respond to statements like this. Yes, if you care about issues de jour, yes, Texas is going to look terrible. And Texas has terrible stances on issues like abortion.
At the same time, you can't ignore the facts. Texas has high property taxes, which are de facto wealth taxes, so it shouldn't surprise anyone on that Texas has significantly lower wealth inequality than California does.
Again, unless you literally inherit a house with an inherited property tax assessment in CA or vest equity in a unicorn, you're probably going to be poorer in CA than in Texas.
We have to stop pretending the landed aristocracy that exist in California somehow "doesn't count" as inequality and injustice.
Oh California has its problems too, I moved away from California after living there for a few years due to the impossibility of affording a home. It’s a beautiful state but the affordability was oppressive, even for high earners. On top of a bunch of other social issues of their own.
Absolutely not here pretending that California is some promised land. Hell, even the state I ended up moving to has its own problems.
It’s just that the problems that Texas does have are untenable for my family.
Yeah, I cancelled my Claude subscription yesterday after learning about their attitude of intentionally sabotaging their paying customers.
Especially after trying Fable yesterday for some benign projects and being unimpressive relative to opus.
Rolling it back is the right move, but I’m still not convinced that using them is in my best interest anymore, I’m investigating open source cloud providers now.
Models are spiky. In some narrow domains (cybersecurity, for instance) it will be a generation ahead. On the other hand a lot of people don't see a measurable difference between Opus ~4.5 and 4.6/7/8, because Anthropic taught it how to do some hard stuff better, but they didn't give it better taste or make it produce cleaner solutions to simpler problems.
Fable is very much an incremental development over Opus, and even more incremental when properly compared to its existing counterparts GPT-Pro and Gemini Deep Research.
I have a design for a really complex software I want to build and there were gaps I knew of in the design. Opus couldn’t identify them but Fable did. I’m just talking about it reviewing the design, not coding. But yeah, it’s insanely expensive. It does spin off sub agents so I suspect it might be cheaper if you had it create a bunch of plan files and then pointed deepseek at this plan files or something like that
Can you write a more specific question? I think the meaning of the comment is clear enough, but maybe you’re asking for more specifics? Ironically I can not understand what you are asking for with such a generic comment.
Looking at the comment thread you linked, this kinda looks like harassment by you rather than anything "confirmed". You seem to have an unhealthy fixation on this user, who may just be a Claude enthusiast rather than a shill as such.
Will you though? I see this repeated, but I’ve almost never changed products because one has 10x more features than another.
I usually buy and use products that are simple and effective, and that get out of my way to do the thing that I want to do.
For email, I’m a happy customer of Fastmail and I’ve been paying them for years. I don’t care if they ever release a new feature and I’d never switch away from them to a competitor that’s less stable but does more. They release improvements slowly but they are very stable. But I would switch away from them if they start shoving AI into things or delivering subpar features that make my email worse.
For healthcare related websites, I can already see my test results, schedule appointments, and communicate with my doctor. What more could an AI-driven medical platform give me that makes my life better?
For maps — I unfortunately had to move away from Apple recently when they added Ads. So I’m mostly just using OpenStreetMaps. I could see AI improving the OSM functionality by updating the app (OrganicMaps) routing algorithms and such, so there is room for growth there, but it’s not that massive.
Can anyone offer features that Uber can’t now due to LLMs? There are a bunch of local Uber competitors but uber wins because it’s easy and there aren’t major features to differentiate there.
Do you have examples that prove that delivering a bunch of features really fast is going to steal customers from something?
your personal experience is clearly in the techie bubble
ai is more than delivering features fast (thats probably one of the lowest priorities for companies)
right now its a race to automate work, especially back office. companies already are seeing 10M+ in savings and revenue growth and we're barely starting. workflows in sales, outbound, gtm, marketing, eng, operations, compliance, kyc etc
consumer is a different beast, consumers want convenience which has already been hyperoptimized and the big consumer cos run on network effs instead of features
> right now its a race to automate work, especially back office. companies already are seeing 10M+ in savings and revenue growth
What? Where? Citations please. We're seeing big companies massively stall in all traditional sectors except AI which is a irrational market built off hype.
ai companies know how to use the tools internally, not surprising
there are no citations yet because this is going on behind closed doors, if you know you know. we'll start seeing it in the financials of companies soon. alternatively you can look at the revenue growth of applied ai companies
I’ve also been trying to use it a lot due to all of the hype, but when I compared it side-by-side on a specific problem against Opus, I think that the solution Opus came to was cleaner and more accurate, although also more verbose.
Small sample size, but if Mythos/Fable was that much better, I feel like it should’ve given me an obviously better answer than Opus.
> the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT)
Holy crap that is dark. I like learning about ML for fun, and now I have to assume that their model is intentionally misinforming me to sabotage my learning? It is absolutely bananas that somebody decided that was ok behavior.
I don’t see how that helps, unless you actually mean open source, rather than open weights like most people do. Without everything that goes into the model, including training data, these things are opaque.
The raw training data is so large that very few parties could host it for free even if there weren't copyright barriers.
But I think you could have a full open source training software pipeline that's set up to work with Wikipedia, Common Crawl, Books3, Library Genesis, Anna's Archive, and whatever other useful data sets people can name. There would just be a step where you have to provide your own copy of Library Genesis (or whatever subset of it you have managed to obtain).
That may very well be the case. In fact, I'm nearly certain that you're right. But it doesn't change the fact that open weight models are altogether insufficient on a number of important dimensions regarding freedom and transparency. And so often (such as the comment I replied to, I think), even technical people seem to just ignore the difference. Open weights are just weights. No amount of open-washing changes that.
Honest question, I wonder why that is? Surely we have smart humans that did not read and learn "all the books". Can AI not be trained by re-reading material multiple times to reinforce?
Start up a seti at home style of open source LLM training! Assuming there is an ability to merge the sub models trained on each user's home PC into a larger model...
That's not something that is known how to do in a reliable fashion, right? It sounds quite like the problem where transformers are unable to be updated/taught over time.
This comment is not entirely on point with your comment, it circles around and above it looking for lift though.
If you're not doing work that requires your code to stay in home nation data centres, Claude for Deepseek, Deepclaude (https://github.com/aattaran/deepclaude) is a great way to get better at using Claude like tools for software development. It even does a pretty good job of putting together cover letters for job applications...
Using Deepclaude is very much cheaper than using claude... For hobby projects, I've found it useful. A recipe (for cooking) management app I've made took a couple of hours to put together and cost $US 0.5. Claude is far more expensive.
The downsides of Deepclaude for many are:-
- DeepSeek is a Chinese corporation so the Chinese Communist Party may ask for data if it wants it.
- DeepClaude isn't as fast as normal Claude, though it's still pretty fast and I think fast enough (YMMV).
- DeepClaude might not be as optimised for various code issues that Claude may be able to solve more quickly or effectively.
- The same safeguards are probably on DeepSeek, but you won't be "wasting" as much money as you might on using Claude.
Inference focused hardware (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvPqHoVSenE, AI generated speech) may in the medium future cause a large enough cost/energy reduction for LLM tools like Claude to make local LLMs more attractive.
Inference focused hardware would make running Open Source models like DeepSeek on local machines far cheaper and control over safeguards would return to the end user.
Hopefully this leads to a localised LLM provision market where local businesses provide varieties of these "local" LLM services. Here, local could mean on premise through to state or nationally based LLM services. Eventually, government orgs outside of the US may demand this kind of LLM use, in the same way governments legally require data to be stored within national borders for many critical government functions.
A bloke can dream I guess...
...Could affordable inference focused hardware also cause the bottom to fall out of these stock market bending valuations for AI corps and their datacentre obsessions?... Not to mention the societal costs caused by the AI super corps building these data centres. At the moment, they're nearly making a profit... They seem almost like speculative companies... Is that a term?
It is basically old iTunes with some UI improvements and modern features built around somebody who has their own library to manage.
Been around for a long time.
It’s great software that I’m willing to pay for in today’s world for sure.
Are there really companies losing right now for using less AI?
Think - would you rather your telecom company’s customer support be AI-forward? Would you pay an extra $5 per month to ensure that you get humans solving your problems immediately when you call with an issue?
What about your backup software? Would you rather choose the company that comes out with new innovations in backing up your data and tons of features, but occasionally breaks everything? Or would you want to choose a company for backup software that is slow at adding anything new and reliable? Isn’t it good if this is deterministic?
What about even a fitness tracking watch. Are there really that many missing features that need to be released way faster? Or is it better if it just tracks your heart rate and workouts well and then gets out of your way? Same here, don’t you want the features to be reliable and deterministic?
I'd be fine with an LLM for customer support, as long as it's empowered to solve my problem. There's nothing a low-level CS representative does that couldn't be handled by an LLM. In both cases, the limiting factor is the authority granted to them by their employer.
Nobody uses an LLM for watches or data backup AFAIK so those seem like moot points.
>There's nothing a low-level CS representative does that couldn't be handled by an LLM.
This kind of reductionist take is an immediate tell that one has no experience in that kind of role. More worryingly, it hints of something antisocial and misanthropic. Do you not enjoy talking with other people during your day? Have you never experienced the resolution of complexity or ambiguity from a person that is intimately familiar with a product, its documentation, or internal processes?
Do you not enjoy talking with other people during your day?
CS reps? No. You must be very lonely, yourself, if your mind went there in the context of this conversation.
Have you never experienced the resolution of complexity or ambiguity from a person that is intimately familiar with a product, its documentation, or internal processes?
Yes, and it's universally something that should have been possible online without talking to anyone, AI or human. That's my real hope.
Stage 1: Corporations replace impotent CS reps with AI.
Stage 2: Corporations gradually empower the AI to interface with their existing internal systems in order to get the customer off the phone faster and avoid social-media brouhahas. Yes, they could have empowered the people in stage 1 to do that, but they didn't.
Stage 3: Corporations realize the AI is just another unnecessary middleman on their payroll, and empower customers to check status, report and escalate issues, handle SLA and billing problems, and obtain RMAs directly via their websites. Which should have been how it worked all along.
No, not lonely, I simply choose to not dehumanize those who work in that role.
> it's universally something that should have been possible online without talking to anyone
why do you think it is the case that quite literally zero medium+ sized companies have no customer support? do you think it’s possible that not every single iota of knowledge or edge case is immediately digitized and ready for consumption by an LLM?
is it also possible that customers that pay serious money for a service don’t want to click about on a website to solve a problem they didn’t cause? wasting someone’s time like that when you already fucked up is a very quick way to lose a customer; one throat to choke, as they say.
but since you’ve drawn the rest of the owl with those stages, I can only assume you’re raking in mad consultant fees for companies like Meta - they certainly haven’t had any issues replacing their humans with AI recently!
Are you shocked that techbros (and especially their CEO leaders) are misanthropists? We have probably empowered the most society adverse group of people in human history. Ones that didn't even need to speak to other humans to become rich.
no, not shocked; just willing to check that perspective more publicly than most.
the vonnegut quote is hitting hard today -
“why don’t you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I’m going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don’t know. The moral of the story is, is we’re here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don’t realize, or they don’t care, is we’re dancing animals.”
reply