Did you try out different reasoning levels? Wondering if messaging is basically a proxy for additional reasoning

As someone who has no idea how to play StarCraft but think it looks really cool and is fun to watch, this was a pleasure to read :)

+1. I’m doing a masters now, and typically I have lectures/slides/textbook open in one tab and Claude in another. When I don’t understand something - which is frequent - I discuss it with Claude until I do. Having an always-on, infinitely patient, phenomenally knowledgeable tutor is AMAZING. Schools could mitigate equity issues by providing their own portals for this (with some guardrails to prevent abuse obviously).

Of course the onus is on me to do this at all, I don’t need to in order to pass the class. I set my own standard for what it means to ACTUALLY understand anything rather than just say “oh yeah that makes sense” and move on.

I think taxes like these actually worsen the incentive structure. If it’s effectively more expensive to do training and inference, labs will be incentivized even more to improve efficiency. Opaque recurrence seems like a great way to improve efficiency, and it comes at the cost of safety

Even more opaque than the models already are? I take that risk.

I also love how the labs are apparently screaming "Stop us! Please stop us!!!" at the top of their lungs while completely unable to escape their own incentive structure...

> I also love how the labs are apparently screaming "Stop us! Please stop us!!!" at the top of their lungs while completely unable to escape their own incentive structure...

It seems like you're implying there's some better alternative, but you're just describing a race-to-the-bottom. It is completely reasonable for every competitor to want an external coordinator (i.e. regulator) to break the pathological competitive dynamics.

Agree with the sentiment - but some companies like mine bought into cursor, and post acquisition, grok is relatively cheap via cursor

Huge gains? What was the impact of this change, considering the only context that we have is that it was not important to the customer? Answer should be expressed in terms of cost, revenue, profit.

I don’t doubt the CTO was exercising poor judgement, but I do doubt that op was communicating his concerns in a way that was tailored to the audience

> would an ML optimization loop have discovered transformers?

I think that’s exactly the kind of problem this group is looking to solve. You make a compelling intuitive argument, but that’s not the same thing as a proof