I think it's safe to assume every single model is benchmaxxed. I mean why wouldn't you include training data from common benchmarks? Not only is a higher score good marketing, but these benchmarks are supposed to represent common tasks so training for those should in principle improve performance across a wider range of tasks.
All of them are doing all the benchmaxing they can most likely. Dumb not to when so many people care about those numbers and don’t have the opportunity to try every model out personally.
My guess is, the US government (aka DJT) won't really acknowledge AI risks until folks at NSA start to freak out while using latest models for various tasks...
That's not how I remember it. Anthropic didn't grovel sufficiently when the White House/Pentagon wanted to use their models to kill people, so they were penalized for their disloyalty.
His carefully crafted public persona. For all we know, he was a long con by the deep state, played a Russian agent since the 1980s, cooperated with Epstein on Iran Contra [1], backstabbed Epstein in the early 2000s and went on to be president twice.
Twice by lying to MAGA about his true intentions, which are fundamentally neocon just like Musk's and Thiel's. They all lie about being libertarians and anti-deep-state.
[1] He was on a boat with Robert Maxwell and several Iran Contra folks around 1990.
It does if the person driving sucks at using it. I've been driving OPD since 2018 and friends that get sick in Teslas driven by Uber drivers have told me they didn't get sick and wondered what I was doing different. The difference is I know how to use it.
I think we're all aware of the number of vehicles out there having the strongly reinforced solid hardtop plus the heavy-duty luggage rack, who never seem to be carrying any luggage up there. Obviously to mitigate a potentially more damaging brontosaurus incident.
I remember reading this back in 2015, but how is this not just the age old conservative (don't do more than needed) vs progressives (lets try some new risk things) debate? As much as I can relate to a more conservative choice when choosing tech that might power a giant consumer company, sometimes using riskier tech in a startup makes more sense to get the real innovation flowing...
and the idea of "Choose New Technology, Sometimes" just feels like a little cheat to get away from the bigger issue with the overall thesis. In this way, the idea in this blog just feels so out of touch.
It’s not about conservative vs progressive but about “safe, battle-tested, stable” vs “could be amazing future-tech”; and the idea of having a small number of innovative technologies, in particular where they matter, is about allowing yourself to spend all those thought-tokens on areas that matter.
You don’t want to be innovating your logging tech or your database if the old will work because you might spend 90% of your time trying to get your new, creative logging solution working when you should be spending it on the creative part of your business.
I might be missing something but conceptually, “safe, battle-tested, stable” vs “could be amazing future-tech” IS about conservative vs progressive... am I missing something?
Good point, I suppose conservative is the right word there. Its broader meaning has been a bit louder lately, so I didn’t think of it the right way there.
I feel like there's a common theme in business advice like this, the bullshit jobs thesis, general alienation of workers, that individuals have a lot of tunnel vision and don't understand the place of a firm in capitalism. The reality is we don't know what strategies will and won't succeed. The system overall works to the extent it works because a hundred thousand monkeys throwing shit at the wall are bound to hit a few targets at least a few times, even if the vast majority of them miss. The larger economy and investment ecosystems are set up under the assumption that most products will never see a single user and most companies will fail. Most employees will spend much of their careers working on projects that get scrapped. It's not much different than life itself. Evolution has no master plan. Most organisms never reproduce. Most species barely make a blip in any ecosystem before going extinct. It sucks for the individuals, but the larger collective goes on and thrives. Life itself does fine. The economy at large does fine, in spite of the ebbs and flows of the business cycle with its bubbles and recessions. Everything still works out in the long run. It's not only okay to fail but it's crucial to the long run success of our collective endeavors.
The vast majority of business strategy is just the lucky survivors assuming in retrospect they were smarter than everyone else. I've been seeing it my entire life, not just in business but in the military, in politics, in sports, in entertainment. Some project leader has one success and coasts off of that forever, failing over and over again afterward because they keep getting rehired, reelected, or re-invested in by inherently conservative investors, hiring committees, team owners, voters, party leaders, who blindly assume winning a Super Bowl means you must have known what you were doing, no matter how many random bounces going your way you had no control over it took.
reply