If Nvidia is the bank, they should be starting to sweat a bit. It's not often companies ask for a voluntary slowdown.
If Nvidia is the bank, they should be starting to sweat a bit. It's not often companies ask for a voluntary slowdown.
Predicting a usefulness plateau is absolutely wild given how fast AI agents have been improving at writing code this year. I have doubts about AGI but I think you’re making assumptions and translating it wrong. These two companies have always been asking for a slowdown from their inception, that’s not a new thing. It’s part marketing hype, but they both do want regulation to step in and slow down the competition, not because they see a usefulness plateau, but the opposite - the usefulness is growing so fast that they want to remain in control, and they are scared that working hard and competing will not be enough. Anthropic has also said out loud they think their competition (not just OpenAI) is not being responsible and they want the regulation so they can be the responsible shepherd, as AI gets more and more useful.
Have the models improved since Opus 4.x? I find the newer models are not better in my day job, maybe in one shotting mvp's and other tasks.
Not trying to argue your point, just intrested in the coding aspect, if the models were improving as fast as benchmarks I would expect capability improvements to be obvious, but talking to people and reading forums, it seems everyone has a different opinion.
Also yes, Fable is massively better than Opus. It requires significantly less instruction and specs and produces more directly mergeable code.
The improvement is obvious as soon as my Fable allotment runs out and I try to do something with Opus. Have you given the same (larger) task to Opus and Fable?
Personally I still use mainly Opus and find it handles most tasks quite well (without burning all my corporate quota).
https://x.com/theo/status/2097192907023458473
(^ this "swearing at a model" thing has happened to me multiple times on Astra already)
If you have to "debate" the quality of a new Big Number model (and double and triple check your eyes and model setting switches when it pukes up complete garbage), that is NOT a good sign.
This is a ridiculous claim that is disproven by simply using it for more than 5 minutes.
The "how much time does it save a dev" tests seem a stronger way to measure success, but not seen one of those run for a while.
Not bothered with Astra myself, but the demos I've seen people build don't seem any more impressive on the important stuff. Defaulting to three.js for games just feels smoke-and-mirrors to make them look better, as those games are still as unplayable for the same reasons they were in 2D.
I’ve never thought LLMs were on the AGI path, but I have to admit it’s surprising how far it’s come with no end in sight yet. There is something important to be said about how ‘intelligence’ is embedded in language, and it suggests that intelligence isn’t exactly what we thought it was. The language component of intelligence also goes a long way to explaining technology’s progress in human civilization; how language and the printing press and mail and radio/tv and the internet have each ushered in accelerations in the pace of progress. Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, it’s unlikely that humans have become any smarter in the last two thousand years, but technology (among other things) has exploded.
Not just building but actively testing
If you have a genuinely-held belief that AI systems will end life on earth and you willfully continuing working on them anyway, then, like... you probably shouldn't be allowed to walk free in civil society anymore, right?
The first messenger from Anthropic is out with this exact message. Stop us (them) or everyone will be killed by 2030
Not necessarily. Could be it's close and they are concerned about issues with it?
Even being cynical, maybe Dario thinks OpenAI's Astra is pretty much AGI and wants to slow things so Anthropic can catch up?
By AGI here I'm thinking when you can say to the model, go build a better model, and lay off the engineers.
So whatever they're selling: LLM will do the jobs of every white collar worker isn't in the foreseeable future.
What planet are you living on? How is this opposite-of-true nonsense being upvoted on HN?
The rate of advancement of models is exponential.
But is the improvement truly exponential??
Are the improvements we have seen from September 2025 to September 2026 really as significant as the improvements from September 2024 to September 2025?
I’m genuinely asking. I can’t answer myself because I haven’t been pushing the latest models to the limit with every new release.
Luckily, AGI is pretty boring. It's a tool that does it's job. It seems like very wishful thinking to expect the same of ASI.