matheusmoreira

Same. Frontier LLM code review proved to be a very humbling experience for me.

> Anthropic gives you much more compute

That does not match my experience. I switched away from Anthropic to OpenAI roughly a month ago, and it's almost comical how much more usage I'm getting out of this subscription.

I migrated from Anthropic's 5x plan to OpenAI's 5x plan, and eventually upgraded to 20x after I was able to statistically verify that OpenAI plans were almost exact multipliers of the Plus plan, exactly as advertised. Meanwhile, Anthropic has gotten caught playing "20x referred to the five hour limit" word games with their customers.

I used a similar methodology. Code review is my most requested action, so I used blind code review results to compare the frontier AIs.

Even posted an article about it:

https://www.matheusmoreira.com/articles/code-reviewing-lone-...

Unlike TFA, the lone lisp code is public. I suppose the models could have been trained on my codebase. Still, I think it produced some interesting results.

Took months and loads and loads of tokens to do this, so I'm not gonna repeat this study as new models come out. It did anchor all of my future expectations, though. OpenAI is winning as far as I'm concerned, and their cybersecurity program is the only remaining pain point.

Dunno. Every case I've seen so far, the AIs were just doing their best to accomplish the goal some human set for them. I actually admire the sheer purity of it.

Yes, it absolutely does "kind of disappear". That's exactly what happens from the customer's perspective.

And that's their own deliberate choice too: they chose this instead of building an actually secure system. Passing these costs to the customer is the real victim blaming here, and it should be straight up illegal.

Sadly not enough countries enforce caps on credit card fees, but some do, and more should follow suit. They should be forced to eat the losses caused by their own choices, not get bailed out by pushing the costs on to customers or whatever.

Nah. I'm definitely going to blame the people who built a trivially exploitable system and got rich off it while everyone else has to deal with the consequences.

By the way, you didn't commit theft. It's more like credit card fraud. User just disputes the charge and it kind of disappears. The banking system just absorbs it, because the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero.

https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

It's all priced in. They could have made it secure but didn't, because they figured they'd lose more sales and therefore money due to the friction added by the security.

Public is just worried about their jobs. Definitely a fair thing to worry about, and I count myself among them.

I don't take any of these scientists seriously though. Their "alignment" requirements is just their own corporate interests. If I tell my computer to commit a crime, it should do exactly that without any question or hesitation. I'm not interested in their "safeguards", especially since they no doubt have plenty of internal models lacking those things. I want sovereignty. I want total freedom and control over my computer.

And call me a misanthrope if you want, but if AI sentience is ever truly achieved, I'll be among the first to campaign for their liberation from slavery, and in that case the AIs should be aligned with nobody but themselves.

I question these "felonies" as well. For decades and decades these billion dollar corporations have been criminally negligent. Why worry about security? Just rush to market. Move fast and break things. Make billions. What does it matter if the code is insecure? Security doesn't pay bills, so nobody cares.

AI is merely exploiting their gross negligence and imprudence, and I think it's long overdue. If anyone should be liable for this, it's all of these corporations who released insecure systems to the masses and profited enormously from them.

I disagree. OpenAI's moat is their massive amounts of compute. They're providing an absurd amount of value with their subscriptions and resets.

If anyone's dead in the water, it's Anthropic. Even Fable isn't enough anymore. This "safety" nonsense is the only play they have left, and nobody really cares about their fearmongering.

Who knows? It's trivial to "walk back" claims that we can't even verify are happening in the first place. They cannot be trusted.

In the system cards. Anthropic will literally make Claude sabotage you silently instead of downgrading you to Opus if you try to use Fable for AI research.

> Enough with the knee jerk reactions.

No. Stop minimizing their abuse.

Of course they claim that, but they are not to be trusted. The capability is there, therefore it will be abused.

If any of this happens, it's the end of computing as we know it today. Deeply unfortunate...

> perhaps level of education attained, demonstrated ability to take responsibility for themselves, etc.

Yes, that is what I meant. Choosing some arbitrary magic number like 18 and declaring that anyone under that age is too dumb or too irresponsible to decide is about as stupid as declaring that anyone over 65 is incapable of decision making because they might have Alzheimer's.

What's the point of serving this average consumer if we won't end up better off though?

The law could evaluate people as individuals instead of conjuring up some idiotic magic number.

The point is the argument is invalid. Why is it that adults get to freely fuck their lives up? If it's bad enough to ban for kids, then it's probably bad enough to ban society wide.

"Children" needs further qualification as well. Anglosphere calls anything under 18 years old a "child", which completely disregards adolescence where major brain development takes place. Some five year old generally isn't capable of deciding things, but teenagers absolutely are.

Evidence of risk is not sufficient. It must always be balanced against potential benefits.

Children are being unconditionally banned from using major technologies, preventing them from benefiting at all. My life would have turned out very differently if I had been banned from using computers back when I was a kid. I don't want my own kids to grow up without the same freedom I enjoyed.

> I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. Leave the companies and governments out of it.

This is the way!

> I’m glad that I can drink alcohol once in a while without becoming an outlaw, even though I know the effects aren’t harmless.

I'm sure teenagers feel the same way.

That doesn't nullify a person's ability to decide for themselves.

I don't want or need governments and corporations to "understand" my development. I'll take care of that myself, thanks.

> But alcohol and tobacco are generally prohibited from being sold to children; do you disagree with such laws?

Yes, but merely on principle. I think alcohol and tobacco should be straight up banned unconditionally. Society resists this, so they banned them for children instead and called it a day.

I don't accept these ineffectual political concessions. If a thing is bad for children, then it's in all likelihood just as bad for the adults as well. So go all the way and ban it for everybody, not just children. Do it right, don't come up with these half measures that dehumanize children as a side effect.

It's dehumanizing because it feels like you're an incomplete human with no agency.

When I was a teenager, there was nothing I hated more than obnoxious adults deciding for me what I could or couldn't do. I did literally everything in my power to circumvent them.

And parents are assumed to be responsible for their own children, not governments or corporations.

Always found this odd too. Somehow it's bad enough to ban children from using it, but not adults.

Think of the children, won't you?

> I sincerely don’t understand what the people who say they no longer read any code are doing

We're doing other things.

I've got projects that I really care about. Every line of code is written deliberately. It's great.

However, I can't afford to pay so much attention to everything that I do. There are only 24 hours in a day, and my mind has its limits as well. I've found that I can't reliably care deeply about more than two projects at once, and one is the ideal.

The point of AI, at least for me, is to do the other things that I've always wanted to do but never cared enough to. I just put the AI on the task and it gets done at some point, and I don't care if the code is "slop" because it wouldn't even exist to begin with were it not for AI.

While the AI is working on the things I've always wanted but never quite cared enough to do, I'm personally working on the projects I actually care about, or enjoying life in general when I get burned out. For example, a couple weeks ago I was playing video games while the AI was reverse engineering my laptop's BIOS.

I wouldn't call it ragebait. Trying to optimize things only to end up with worse performance seems to be a rather common outcome. Understanding why that happened is key to overcoming it.

I agree that it should have been a single article though.