dannyw

There's far more than zero evidence, see https://arxiv.org/html/2402.08806v1 ; or the industry-standard practice of using multiple model families as LLM judges; or even 1P implementations https://code.claude.com/docs/en/advisor (which misses most of the benefit; since you want different model families, with different pretrains and posttrains).

The BBC of today is far from what it was a decade ago. So much trust and credibility has been lost.

Claude models don't go out globally either. Bedrock is fine. Azure is fine.

If you're not using Codex and Claude at the same time, you're missing out heaps. Even without outages, OpenAI models are great reviewers for Claude; and vice versa.

Other than trivial PRs; everything I do with Opus/Fable gets reviewed by Astra; and everything I do with Astra gets reviewed by Opus/Fable.

Using only models from a single vendor, is like testing your website/webapp only on Chrome.

So it generates logits in a 255 token output space? ;)

Our brains are hard-wired to enjoy (at least in the short term) immediate gratification, and the removal of friction. It's a hard battle to fight.

Do you use chrome? Check chrome://flags

Don’t make too quick snap judgements. “Honeymooning”, or giving new subscriptions / upgrades extra usage or “juice” is pretty common industry practice amongst SaaS “growth hacking” for years. Sadly.

It’s more likely that GP encountered some bug or corner case or weird experiment conflating than anything intentionally deceptive.

There’s also the fact that LLMs aren’t perfect, and sometimes even the best models act really stupid sometimes.

I’d just assume good intent here. Feature flags, telemetry, and fast rollouts / rollbacks are standard practice in software. Have a look at chrome://flags perhaps.

I fully believe GP that there was zero intent to gate this behind collecting telemetry. Sounds like a little tech debt and a little oversight, and the simplest explanation is that it is.

Models are generally posttrained to a window shorter than you think.

IIRC it only blocks kernel development for Huawei and other Chinese chips.

Fable and Opus, since 5.1 and 5, will happily hill climb on my CUDA kernels for transformers.

There’s enough thinking leakage from the recent paper and just generally catching things on Reddit. Claude models overthink and self-doubt itself just as much as Qwen, but the summariser hides much of that.

If you’re using the API, both OpenAI and Anthropic models will happily update you on what it’s doing in significant and frequent detail with system prompting. You’re not getting raw/hidden thinking, but what you’re describing is more behavioural quirks of the harness and its system prompts.

The other explanation is just as part of ‘token efficiency’

Much prior art here, works against both Google and OpenAI's SynthID: https://github.com/0xROOTPLS/DeSynth

That's quite disappointing. Whose hardware is it anyways? Yours, when you pay for it.

Try translating your prompt to Chinese first, it seems a lot better at understanding and following Chinese prompts even with the translation hop.

You really think Alibaba is going to go around and sue in US courts for something like this?

It’s more of something to scare companies with legal teams. If you’re an individual or hobbyist doing a side project the risk is essentially zero.

If you’re using models today, it’s worth it.

Yes it’ll eventually get built into the harness/model/interface; just like how “work it out step by step” became thinking, but if you have work to do today, it can be worth trying to improve it.

K3.1 would likely be a deeper/longer post-train from K3, so that’d make sense.

It’s all marketing anyways, but that’s at least how a lot of labs have been naming things (sometimes).

Oh it's probably intentional. I've seen efforts to simplify terms of service get rejected because "more people might read it if it's shorter".

What? People never read documentation?

I start with reading and exploring documentation first; with the codebase as a secondary tab.

When it’s not LLM generated, documentation is supposed to be easier to read and more insightful than code.

I believe most of their marketing videos use fairly convincing text to speech too, not voice actors.

At the end of the day, as an individual or a team or a company, regardless of the statue and case law, you have to perform the calculus on your monetary and legal resources versus your counterparty.

Obviously ungrounded and frivolous cases tend to be easier to defend asymmetrically, but if I was X's legal team, there's no shortage of semi-plauisble claims I could throw at the wall and see what sticks.

As an example of this imbalance in action, BrightData is a 'gray area' company that basically does this exact kind of scraping. They have somehow won against Meta Platforms suing them, and even got X's lawsuit against them for scraping -- identical (?) activity to XCancel -- dismissed.

According to Wikipedia:

> In May 2024, a federal judge dismissed the suit, ruling that Bright Data did not violate X's terms of service or copyright by scraping publicly accessible data.[24] The judge emphasized that such scraping practices are generally legal and that restricting them could lead to information monopolies

But does XCancel have the resources of a company like Bright Data, that's funded and used by companies like Deloitte and Moodys?

You've linked to xcancel.com's captcha; not a X post.

SVT-AV1 is also more than just open source in name only; development and discussions happen in the open; with many community forks that’s now getting upstreamed/merged.

It is a true open source project; not just an open source license.

I’ve been shooting with semipro to pro cameras for decades across brands, and I haven’t came across a single camera that supports shooting JPEG XL.

HEIF is what is getting support in recent models; but JPEG still rules supreme for its compatibility.

Generally companies are welcome to choose to who to provide service to, as long as it's not discriminating against a protected class, or ruled as anticompetitive (which is a very high bar in recent case law; even if the same 1890s-era laws are still on the books).

I don't think a correct remedy is to require companies to provide services even if they want to. A simple example: you drop a client because their asks / ways-of-working / etc is more headache and costs than it's worth. I've done that before, multiple times, in my freelancing life.

Fewer people would create scientific or artistic works if they could just be copied or used without protection either; or so is the premise behind copyright and intellectual property; even being deeply embedded into the US Constitution (Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 8).

There is sooo much irony here.

These frontier labs violate billions of terms of services across the web, that prohibit scraping / automated access / etc. Most sites have a clause, it’s basically standard boilerplate.

So why is their own ToS so special? :)