Anthropic models are comically overpriced. They also gobble up an obscene # of tokens to get the same result as others. The price delta is literally 5x.
Taking the benchmarks (as reported by OpenAI) at face value, why wouldn't they show Opus 5.5 on the OS world benchmark, and show no Anthropic models at all on the "factual error rate" benchmark
or they factored the cost of cleaning into their price. doing the cleaning as a host myself is not a reason not to charge a cleaning fee if that is the way i make my money.
the whole thing with a cleaning fee is either to allow the advertised room price to appear lower (but doesn't airbnb now factor the cleaning fee into the price shown?) or alternatively to make longer stays cheaper because the cleaning fee is not applied for every day).
> An interactive companion to our ongoing exploration
Eyes glazed over again.
Did you even read your own site before you posted it?
One of the first pages I opened:
> Smoking-gun proof of plant-label ingestion: in Row 2, the central cut root is labeled okol (f88r.15), and directly underneath it on Line 2 (f88r.19) the recipe writes...chokol daiin qoekol qoekol qockhol okol cheol...!
How about you post something you've done/built instead of just insulting other people. Spend your mornings using people stuff just to poke holes in it?
Are they fully “doing math” in an aligned way though? They are finding mathematical proofs, which is important, but contextualizing results in the prior literature and clearly communicating the approach and implications is just as much part of mathematical research.
You might argue that these aspects of math are less important in the new AI accelerated math world, because agents will inevitably be smarter than humans, but I think clear framing and communication is even more important than before because with this technology we can choose to augment our intelligence instead of defer it
> Are they fully “doing math” in an aligned way though?
No matter what you think "aligned" means here, publicly releasing advancements in a scientific field shouldn't be gatekept or be perceived as misaligned in any possible way.
If anything, the true misalignment comes from people trying to prevent these advancements from happening or being disclosed, or putting research behind BS paywalls.
I don‘t think this is gatekeeping. OpenAI is filthy rich, they can afford to pay mathematicians to go over these papers and produce results consistent with the scientific method. The fact they don‘t is evidence of their misalignment. Their motives are obviously ulterior and have nothing to do with advancing knowledge. If they were they would adhere to the scientific method, hire experts, and produce reproducible results.
> Putting research behind BS paywalls.
Yes, that is gatekeeping. But there are more then one way to be misaligned. And the practice of publishers is not being discussed here. No need for whataboutism.
Do other researchers or research institutions “pay mathematicians (other than those in their employ) to go over these papers” or do they simply publish their work for review as part of producing “reproducible results”?
AI may be taking over Mathematicians’ jobs, along with everyone else’s, and it’s OK to hate that, but the scientific method says nothing about that, or hiring experts, or ulterior motives, or “being filthy rich.”
OpenAI has not released the model for replication (not even to select few), they have not even shared the prompts. All we have is their results and their compute times (which may even be lies). This is the opposite of the scientific method. The scientific method asks for falsifiability and replication. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it is not scientific, if results cannot be replicated, they are not scientific. OpenAI fails on the second account here.
Not being scientific is excusable in some context. A high-school prodigy might stumble upon an unexpected result that they had a hunch about, but fail to make those results replicatable. Similarly a YouTuber with under a 1000 subscribers might propose an unfalsifiable hypothesis as entertainment. Being scientific takes skill and effort, and it is not free, so we can’t expect anybody to follow the standards. However OpenAI claims to be a trillion dollar company, and they do not have the same excuses as a small YouTuber or a high school student. OpenAI absolutely can afford to follow the standards, if they claim to be furthering the human understanding, then they should be scientific about it.
I know I am, though maybe not as visibly so as your parent. Us anti-AI Luddites are arguing against a massive propaganda machine with trillions of dollars on the line. It is not easy, and it is mentally draining. Especially since AI-companies are behaving in an obviously anti-human, anti-science, and anti-industry ways for their own short term profits.
And worse yet, we have seen this before (albeit on a lesser scale). GMO was supposed to solve global hunger, Carbon capture was supposed to solve climate change, etc. etc. These were obvious lies and propaganda back then as much as the lies where AI are supposed to help humanity today. It gets tiring, and at some point we simply crash out.
unfortunately technology will never fix humanity's tendency to ruin itself (see: war, climate change, etc; all of which we know the solutions for ie 'stop killing people' 'stop using oil' etc) but that is not a fault of the technology itself (gmo, carbon capture, crispr, llms, etc)
This is simply not true. Plenty of technology exists which has helped humanity unambiguously. But there is a difference between good and helpful technology and a grift. GMO could have been helpful but it was mostly just a grift, GMO solving world hunger was always an obvious marketing stunt, and it worked, even though many of us (particularly on the political left) saw it as such and called it out as such. Ditto Carbon capture.
AI is currently the grift of choice.
Also I fundamentally disagree that there is any tendency for humanity to ruin it self. There are perverse intensives, which rewards undesirable behavior, there are unfair, undemocratic, or otherwise hostile powerstructures which allows one class of peoples to exploit another class of peoples. And some technology sometimes plays a pivotal role in maintaining or furthering these hostile power structures/perverse intensives.
Blaming the 340 million citizens of the US for Trump’s actions is repulsive too, but plenty of people enjoy doing that on the Internet.
Sorry. People are responsible for the governments they have. Everyone is, or nobody is.
Those 260 million Pakistanis can educate themselves on vaccines and make informed decisions. Vaccine denial in the US? Same thing. You can’t say Americans are responsible for anti-vax sentiments, for example, and then say other people around the world aren’t.
Or are Americans smarter and better than everyone else and so they’re more responsible? I’ll happily take you admitting we’re the best if you want to go that route.
You know, even being about to talk this much about your own government or foreign governments takes a certain level of privilege. At least 1/5th of Pakistan is in poverty.
I’m proud to be privileged and think more should be.
For example I think Iranians should be privileged to speak out against their repressive government without fear of being hung. Pakistanis aren’t privileged and can’t speak out against their government harboring Bin Laden? Someone should fix that so they are are able to speak out against that, right?
Regardless, being poor doesn’t make one stupid or uneducated. Many Americans who are anti-vax are also poor by American standards, but I don’t think it matters. You can’t have your cake and eat it too here.
Is this a conversation you are having with yourself or an LLM response?
> He moves between at least three different meanings without separating them
> he says that before making an argument about US interest rates/debt
> So if I were reducing his recurring argumentative style to the most defensible labels, I’d say:
Not only are you incorrect, your model response is too. I also don’t care about a big dump of alleged fallacies. It’s just meaningless to me. At least have the common courtesy of sanitizing your responses.
> Sorry. People are responsible for the governments they have. Everyone is, or nobody is.
In a democracy, yes. Pakistan however is a democracy only in distant theory, pretty much everyone sane calls it an authoritarian regime [1].
And no, in the age of guns and nuclear weapons, we can't go and blame a country's people for its government. I don't blame Gazan civilians for Hamas, I don't blame Iranian civilians for the Mullahs, I don't blame Chinese peasants for the CCP and I don't blame ordinary Russians for Putin. These people do not have a choice - either openly (e.g. China) or in practice (Pakistan, Russia, Iran).
> Those 260 million Pakistanis can educate themselves on vaccines and make informed decisions.
Pakistanis, especially in rural areas, are barely literate [2], and we're talking basic literacy here. Informed decisions require the ability to both access and understand relevant information.
> Or are Americans smarter and better than everyone else and so they’re more responsible?
Americans (as a whole) are at least better suited. On average they are far more literate, they got actual schools, they have reasonably free elections. Yes, the US democracy is flawed (FPTP and gerrymandering basically rendering the votes of swaths of people irrelevant, billionaires manipulating media coverage, ICE and other government organisations being used for voter suppression), but the US still is miles ahead of Pakistan or virtually all "third world" countries.
> In a democracy, yes. Pakistan however is a democracy only in distant theory, pretty much everyone sane calls it an authoritarian regime [1]
No I reject this and neo-liberal views of the world. That’s the mental model that got us into the Iraq debacle. What follows is that this becomes a problem (authoritarianism) that needs to be corrected “spread democracy”.
> These people do not have a choice - either openly (e.g. China) or in practice (Pakistan, Russia, Iran).
There is always a choice. Democracies weren’t inherent in the world but had to be fought for. They need to fight for their rights. Or not. It’s their responsibility.
> Pakistanis, especially in rural areas, are barely literate [2], and we're talking basic literacy here. Informed decisions require the ability to both access and understand relevant information.
Same was true during the age of European colonialism. “We must christianize them and educate them”. &c &c
> Americans (as a whole) are at least better suited.
As long as you agree Americans are better and exceptional I can’t really argue against you here.
> What follows is that this becomes a problem (authoritarianism) that needs to be corrected “spread democracy”.
Well for once the neoliberals were correct. In fact, the idea of "universal human rights" was a direct lesson out of 1933-1945, and Article 21 [1] directly specifies everyone's right to take part in government.
A right however is only worth more than the paper it's written on as long as it is enforced, and kleptocrats don't tend to hand over their ill-gotten power willingly.
> There is always a choice. Democracies weren’t inherent in the world but had to be fought for. They need to fight for their rights. Or not.
Which the Iranians did, and tens of thousands were slaughtered just this very year while the rest of the world watched. Or many Arab countries that had their version of "Arab Spring". Or the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine that was a direct, if late, consequence of the Maidan revolution.
> It’s their responsibility.
It's ours as well. There's this infamous line you see every time you run "sudo" in a terminal: "With great power comes great responsibility". We, us Western nations, have power, and lots of it - but we are not using it the way we should, we instead are using it mostly to make money.
> As long as you agree Americans are better and exceptional I can’t really argue against you here.
I'm German, and for what it's worth "American Exceptionalism" is a whole lot of bollocks (because guess what, objectively compared Americans are so much worse off in many metrics it isn't even funny any more, just tragic). Doesn't change my (decently sourced) facts.
reply