AnodicElegy

It was in the link in the parent of the thread to which I replied. But you can find it on Artificial Analysis's website now.

This stood out:

"Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.1.1

61.2"

So on the Metacritic of LLM benchmarks, it's.. basically where everyone else is (except for Fable 5.1, which is a bit ahead).

Zitron has staked his bear position and isn't budging, so regardless if he's been wrong and wrong again, he'll be remembered for calling the bubble if/when it pops, if only because so few in the media have done so without equivocation.

Fable 5.1 is actually more expensive than 5.0 when run on the Artificial Analysis suite:

https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence-efficiency-tabs

The data and graphs are great, but it would have been a much higher quality report if the text and titles were written by a human.

Why call out "drink less" but not "smoke less"? Both are recreational drugs, both are socially stimulative, but only the former has the propensity to lead to serious harm in the short term.

I switched two of my PCs over to Linux Mint last week. The automatic driver support is shockingly good compared to when I last installed Linux on a PC (almost 20 years ago). It even found a driver for the random no-name USB wireless receiver I bought on Amazon, whereas I had to install that driver manually on Windows.

Part of my motivation was that one of the machines was still on Windows 7, but more than anything it was the incessant push to associate my OS account with an online Microsoft account, and the cramming of Copilot into everything, that have left a bad taste in my mouth.

Accessible with free FT account

Artificial Analysis benchmark is out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49450353

Impressive. It kicked everything between itself and Sol xhigh out of the Pareto frontier. Can't wait to try it out.

Net debt to GDP is arguably a more important metric. Look at Norway, for example. Presenting it as an indebted nation is hardly the whole picture.

"How this article was written I wrote this article and used Grammarly to proofread and fix it."

What a brave new world we're in, where this is necessary. Regardless, it's appreciated. Although, I have the feeling that those using an LLM to do most of their writing will be less likely to include such a disclaimer.

I don't think the public is going to swallow subsidies for the richest companies on Earth so that they can avoid competition.

"...A proprietary model that the U.S. government is treating like something just shy of a nuclear weapon..."

This is more than a little hyperbolic. Maybe "just shy of Valium"?

"Prompts and completions are retained by the provider and are not used for training..."

I'm curious what the model provider is using the prompt/response pairs for, in that case. They aren't offering a model for free without their name on it for no reason.

Yes, they have multiple levels of Claude, GPT, Gemini, and Kimi, but not the other top models (I would put GLM, Qwen, Muse, Grok, and Deepseek in that bucket).

I understand that running these benchmarks can get expensive, but it would be really nice to see AA include more benchmarks of models at reasoning settings other than the maximum, at least for the biggest releases. They have that nice graph of cost vs. composite benchmark score with the Pareto frontier line, but who knows if those are actually the optimal choices? There are already a few non-max-reasoning models on the Pareto line, among the few that were tested.

"I wrote Machines of Loving Grace because I didn’t feel the AI industry was painting an inspiring enough picture of how the technology could radically transform the world for the better. The bulk of the essay is devoted to refuting skepticism of AI’s potential in health and biology, and showing why I think it will actually be possible to cure most human disease in ~5-10 years, as crazy as it may sound to ordinary people and frankly to biologists as well (I used to be one!). And, if you read my most recent essay (Policy on the AI Exponential), I discuss concrete proposals for how to streamline the FDA process to make sure the deluge of AI-accelerated drugs isn’t slowed down by the regulatory process."

This is fantasy, and I believe the vast majority of those actually working in pharmaceutical R&D would agree. Contrast Amodei's opinion here to the Derek Lowe post I shared recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49313367 . Derek Lowe's opinion is closest to my own experience: AI, whether it be traditional ML or LLMs, can help here and there -- the former to help you to triage paths to explore in a way that's a little better than intuition in some cases, the latter mostly to generate code faster in the code-dependent aspects of pharma research -- but neither of these things are significantly widening the main bottlenecks. I don't think the data exists to do so, especially since so much of pharma R&D is looking for higher and higher hanging fruit (i.e. exploring avenues for which a trove of relevant training data does not already exist).

Interesting fellow. He has publicly claimed that he has ESP:

https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/wikipedia-wars...

https://openpsych.net/forums/18/thread/25/?page=1#124

OP here: the title of the thread still links to Derek Lowe's blog post, but the article discussed in the blog post was added to the body of the original post (not by me).

Looks lovely. I wonder if it has good fishing.

Domnauer is overstating the "little people" effect here. Seeing miniaturized people seems to be only one of several manifestations associated with these mushrooms. This Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogenic_bolete_mushroom) is a lot more informative. To me, it sounds like it could actually be a serotonergic substance, but it's not clear. I hope they find the active constituent!

I think a lot of people are simply glad to see so much viable competition in the LLM space. Given the oligopolistic outcomes in Big Tech over the past couple decades, it would be nice if Big AI turned out differently, even if a lot of those competing have monopolies or near-monopolies in other spheres.

That reminded me a lot more of Chip's Challenge than of mowing a lawn. Just missing some blocks to push!

That seems like a problem orders of magnitude harder than making a humanoid robot. We haven't even figured out how to make hamburgers without cows at a marketable price yet.

I imagine that the perception might be that a judge will approach the case more rationally and technically, whereas the jury might be swayed by sympathy for the victim, biases, etc. To what extent that's true I do not know, but conviction rates are significantly lower in Canada than in the U.S.

For all but minor offences in Canada, you have the right to a jury trial. Here, the accused elected to be tried by a judge. Most people do.

Let's not forget the good old Single Greatest Predictor ( https://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2013/12/the-single-gr... ), which hit an all-time high in Q4 2025 ( https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Wc2g ).

The safety ratios listed in reference [1] are exaggerated, as can be determined by the following qualification: "The majority of published reports of acute lethal toxicity indicate that the decedent used a co-intoxicant (most often alcohol)."

The vast majority of so-called drug overdoses are due to polydrug intoxication. It's much harder to die by consuming a single substance. This is clear from the statistics of the few jurisdictions that report all substances in the blood in coroner's reports. See, for example, the Scottish data from 2020 (https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/34642/7/ndrdd_report.pdf ): "In 2020, almost all (96%) [drug-related deaths] occurred after the consumption of multiple substances."

If an LLM is used in the drafting of an article, this should, at least, be disclosed, preferably at the beginning of the article. For example, I recently came across this article ( https://thedispatch.com/article/affordability-crisis-healthc... ). The LLM voice was suppressed well enough until this inane passage:

"One number. Four completely different stories. The number is engineered to include all of them, because including all of them is what produces the 49 percent."

I decided to fact-check a statement ("CNN’s May 2026 survey found the share of Americans spontaneously naming gas prices as their top economic problem rose from 5 percent to 23 percent in a single year, with food costs cited almost as often") and it was incorrect (food costs were in fact cited more often than gas prices). Since the first thing I checked was wrong, I decided it wasn't worth my time reading the rest of the article. It was, as they say these days, slop.

It felt like a little bit of my time had been stolen. If a disclosure had been at the top, it would have been more of a caveat emptor situation.

It shocks me that we use to go to wave pools like these for elementary school trips. They never even asked us if we could swim or not. I was at least a passable swimmer, but even so, it was so crowded that I remember a couple times getting stuck under the water briefly trying to find my way up between all the feet and inner tubes.