And if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bicycle. The process of creating an in group naturally creates out groups. The “brainwashing” OP describes is just as natural as social alignment through an innate drive for conformity.
Sure. Push and pull. The point is that needs effort to work at larger scales. We don’t “naturally” organize into nations of three hundred million or a billion. To the extent we do, we also “naturally” go to war.
There is a pretty interesting study of a large group of chimps. I dont remember where exactly but they have been civil warring the last 15 years or so. Point is, it seems that there is some kind of innate group formation process.
> It's nice that some games work on Linux pretty well these days
This description doesn't really do it justice. ~75% of top 100 games work well out of the box/with minimal tinkering according to https://www.protondb.com/dashboard (it varies a bit based on the rating scale)
Many work perfectly and many work even better than they do on Windows. Valve's work really changed the game over the past few years.
The market aligned us with children working in sweat shops after we outlawed it by convincing us it was OK if it was foreign kids and we got to share in pocketing the savings not just the evil factory owner.
Often they generate thousands of non-existent pages which get indexed by search engines and just redirect people to Aliexpress pages or other affiliate link sites.
You may think that's a good thing but it's not. Codex is great at coming up with solutions to problems that don't exist and failing to find solution to problems that do. In the end you have 300 new lines of code and nothing to show for it.
We're not talking about writing assembly by hand here. If your software has a million daily users and wastes a minute of their day, that's about 9 work-years of labour wasted every single day.
In a 5-year lifecycle that's about 10,000 years of human labour wasted. Yes, I had to quadruple-check this myself.
Does it take 10,000 work-years of effort, per project, to train its developers to write reasonably performant code?
Of course not all of this would translate into actual productivity gains but it doesn't have to.
From a technological standpoint, sure. I'd argue when you're staring down the barrel of 19,234 duplicate file deletions, with names like `image01.jpg`, `image02.jpg` instead of `happy_birthday.jpg`, there's a level of perceptual cognitive trust there that I just can't provide.
I'm the last person to defend any of these companies, but it's not a retest. The set of tasks is clearly different and results for the original tasks are nearly identical. It differs on one task where it previously had fabrications = 0 and now it's 1, which dropped the score from 100% to 86%
Combining multiple tests on the same leaderboard like this is nonsense, there should be a separate leaderbaord for the new tasks where every model is tested again.
Putting it on the original leaderboard as "Opus 4.6 (April 12)" is so obviously inappropriate that it smells like deception. You could say that the leaderboard is hallucinated.
Of course, but for how long? Do you think that companies will keep giving away valuable assets for free forever, or do you think that in the near future there's going to be an open weights model that's so good that people keep using it indefinitely instead of going back to frontier model providers?
The first one is just incredibly naive, the second might be true for some people, for some tasks, but it's not going to capture the majority who're chasing the latest and greatest to "keep up".
> Do you think that companies will keep giving away valuable assets for free forever
If China is forced to choose between giving the entire AI market to the US or releasing free models, they'll be releasing free models as long as it's necessary.
Every time you release the models you even the playing field out for the competition, which ruins a lot of the advantage your bigger competitors had. It also lets smaller players work on the latest tech and then you can make deals with them.
do you think that in the near future there's going to be an open weights model that's so good that people keep using it indefinitely instead of going back to frontier model providers?
We are almost at that point now, where the harnesses and tools are more important drivers of functionality and performance than the model weights themselves. We'll get there.
> i.e. without brain-washing and deliberately working to create out-groups
reply