not_paid_by_yt

I suppose they don't because they want to be respected, and the LLM companies that got big think they are past needing to have respect for the people who's jobs and ways of living they want to automate. We saw that in how the leading AI company for this kinda of pure reasoning and advanced logic (OpenAI by a mile) treated reporting when they made those 10 recent discoveries in mathematics, they didn't bother crediting the work their models generated a proof by building upon, the headline was just all about their models and how great they are.

You could make it a state capitalist society with theoretical public ownership and this disrespect towards people won't go away. Like LeGuin - a famous non-anarchist - pointed out in the dispossessed simply liberating the social relations and saying you have no rulers is not enough to build a society without unjustified power, and what power even is or isn't justified will rarely be an easy matter.

I don't know you can build this technology otherwise that is without coercion, with consent, the people that want it have convinced themselves it's too important to try to justify to anyone else why they need it, I think you could eventually do it. But for us at the very start of the development of what became this systems we went into it with a handful of admittedly brilliant people so convinced they have a right to reshape the world they didn't care if anyone else agreed to this, they would have been bad anarresti. If you wanted to build it in a fair way it might be another generation or more before the project would be complete, you would have to first convince people this is something that should be built in the first place, not just that you can build it in a safe way.

Not personally no, but I know people are what used to be good companies that sadly are living that life right now.

I suppose it actually is exactly that, bar not being a human being that experiences anything

They have written like that when the models were much less capable, my hypothesis is this is an example of model collapse happening ever since LLM training leaned in heavily into RL and a result of training on model output the developers are uninterested in correcting since they want ASI not a somewhat useful AI coding tool that supplements humans without replacing them in the economic system.

Probably to a degree, I have found Gemini to be the least dis-likable of the models from the big 3 on that front. I wonder if the poor English comprehension of Deepseek-v4-pro and K3 is because of alleged distillation of Claude (speaking of why doesn't anyone distill openAI, are they just dramatically more competent at stopping API use that breaks their terms?).

V4-pro in particular seems very capable, but will just dramatically completely misunderstand user intent, it seems almost like it wasn't trained at all on non LLM generated instructions mid conversation.

I'm not sure I could really live down using something branded with Grok but it makes sense Elon Musk at least shipped user facing products in the past, not surprised his company delivered something more usable.

Working as intended, the purpose of a system is what it does.

You could probably keep the Claude slop hidden and have a fresh model generate a paraphrased response for anything human visible and keep the Claude responses as thinking.

> I'll also say that I think Claude sounds the way that it does because it, like many other LLMs, are RLHF trained largely by lowly paid gig-workers, many of them ESL speakers. if their trainers were, for example, dedicated and highly trained academics, scientists, and other researchers, you'd likely see a lot more concise and more importantly skeptical reasoning and responses. but that won't happen in our current reality of capitalist-driven development so we get encoded solutions like MoE that still largely depend on the messy, imprecise RLHF training at baseline

No really, that's not particularly accurate, they use so much gig work because no-one else wants to work for them not because they would be unwilling to pay a little extra, or only want the absolute cheapest labor they can get on the planet.

They want senior white collar professionals and scientists and researchers especially since these companies already on some level believe their models are as good as any senior employee in any field (it's probably the models generating text saying that, but that's besides the point). But who's going to work on contract for a company that wants to automate them out of a job? Realistically no-one unless they get some shares in the thing that will destroy their future earnings potential and ability to control their own destiny if it works out.

But they can find enough educated white collar professionals on unemployment or in unstable academic employment that will take an extra job on even if it's only 50 $/h or 70 $/h and compromise on any solitary they might have but the work output you get from that is only going to be as good as what you ask for, if they had better respect for the professions they want to automate, it would be better.

Like is that an acceptable wage in the US for difficult skilled work, not particularly but it's not rock bottom exactly, and it's not bad for other English speaking countries, working conditions and stated mission are more of an issue than being cheap.

Training pipeline on a modern LLM is also going to be quite indirect during the long tail of post training, and heavy on automated RL, the human feedback might end up getting used in the form of automated grading guidelines like what you did for research, with the same issues as that, compounded by the input being LLM generated and models being biased towards model output by default. It's more of a feedback on the loop rather than in the loop.

The spec your principal engineer one-shoted through Claude and didn't even proof read afterwards before dumping it on the team?

It could be, but without evidence that remains a just so story, no particular reason to think it's required or useful or even harmless to the model performance or anything other than an artifact of some early silicon valley writing style being injected into the model and continuous retraining on the output of older models.

Would more blame this on the LLM companies, they think they are on the verge of automating all work, I don't think they care about how you feel about the writing style of the Deus Ex Machina, it's not going to get fixed because to them Claude is already above a staff engineer and soon going to smarter than any human that will ever live. All the money will be going into improvements relevant to improving long context operating and correctness, they could fix the writing style but they are disinterested in that for frontier models, maybe some other companies are but they don't have as much money.

you're both under and over estimating this technology I think, we are further away from SWE becoming a niche job than you think, but also LLMs really are less impacted by programming language than you think, this is a very pre-2010s approach to NLP, it really matters quite little to a language model what language the code is in, you could have it write it in Python using exclusively Chinese logographs for names, and exclusively French transliterated into Mayan script for comments and it might barely perform worse than if you asked it to do something normal, but that also goes in the other direction, trying to design a language that's "friendly" to LLMs will likely not do much good either. The reality is there's a massive amount of data on existing languages and they are good enough for LLM usage.

I think if changes will happen in this direction it will be around formal verification, it's more difficult to trust LLM generated code if you aren't completely brainroted on press releases, and traditionally formal verification was seen as more effort than it's worth, but a tool that's great that generating insane amounts of text is quite well suited to formally verifying code, and assuming you can figure out how to make the specification readable to people, you just don't (in theory) need to ever look at the code or the proof, even if it might be helpful to anyways in practice. I'm quite excited the future of software might be fully unhackable software being the standard, with hacking becoming something that's talked about as a brief criminal fad in the beginning of the 21st century, like how you might hear about coin clipping from before fiat currency.

what one has to do when corporate does not not them use GPT-5.5

it does tho is the thing, like if someone is fine with using a non-SOTA model then no, but those people are probably happy with deepseek or something cheap like that, if you feel you need to be on the absolutely frontier of commercially available that's OpenAI right now, they need to convince those people they are not too far behind if they are still only using Opus or enroll them onto Mythos.

I think the optimistic thing one can hope for is this will result in coders developing somewhat of a class consciousness but it's probably too late, if that was ever going to happen people would have refused to develop AI tools in the first place.

tokens will stop being given away for free at some point, writing software was always a pretty simple white collar job, so it makes sense it's one of the earlier ones to be automated, but really the axis of evil has it's shot now at ruling the world or whatever now, but if they miss it they will eventually be subject to the market and you really will need to automate a lot more than just software developers for models this large to be worth the cost.

Of course we should really be talking about using the state or otherwise to make training larger and larger models impossible. It's not in the public good if LLMs actually get good enough to replace a lot of human labor, only a small handful of billionaires and their cronies will ever benefit from that. The Luddites were not wrong after all.

welcome to late capital, please enjoy the ride while people are trying to tell you that LLMs are the only future (you have no future) while SOTA models can barely do shit on their own consistently outside of carefully designed benchmarks, and have to be made available at a loss otherwise no-one would use them.

On your right you can see the CEOs justifying longer hours and lower pay because AI will replace your job one day anyways, and then asking you why you aren't 10x more productive with Claude. On the left you can see the AI companies deciding who will be in charge of the fascist regime once they no-longer need workers other than for the coal mines. They reckon they can get 120 good years before they biosphere is uninhabitable, which they are worried about because what if the next LLM figures out immortally for them, maybe they will have to close the coal mines too after all.

we are probably not going to keep pumping CO2 out at the rate of the worst case scenario of business because believe it or not companies are aware there is little profit to be made from dead consumers.

The realistic scenarios are still pretty bad but less so.

Just assuming LLMs will scale to the point of being more useful as all these companies are banking on is not unfounded but it's also just an educated guess because of their own optimistic prediction they will be able to bring about a new fascist world they are in charge of before they run out of money. It's very likely we are all screwed but it's also very likely LLMs will not scale up fast enough so they can replace the majority of human labor.

if the trendlines continue on atmospheric greenhouse gases we will all be dead from climate change so I really do hope the world is a little bit more complicated than trendlines just extrapolating out. Interestingly enough that might actually be bad for OpenAI since it will be difficult to sell their product if their customers are dying from heat stroke.

and that's at the VC funded discount rate I would presume, not even true cost of those tokens without any profit.

hey just don't try to copy their LLM by distilling it, cause that's "theft", if we weren't all doomed anyways this industry would have never been allowed to exist in the first place, but I guess this is just what the last few decades of our civilization will look like.

That's always what laws existed for, a law is just a formal way of saying "we will use violence against you if you do something we don't like" and that has always going to be primary written by and for the people that already have the power to do that, it's not the worst, certainly better than Kings just being able to do as they please.

why should I care about """stealing it"""? I don't have any Alphabet stock, I am not employed by Alphabet, in any case they can afford to run Youtube at a loss or just shut it down.

It's kinda cute how much you care about the profit margins of a company when it will (likely) never benefit you. Maybe you should setup a donation fund for Alphabet in these hard times.

I mean surely you would personally give them at least 20 USD considering how badly they are being wronged, maybe 100 if you are feeling generous.