staticman2

I don't know about Opus but I can tell you with Gemini the subscription product OCR is apparently not done by the model. It used a separate old fashioned OCR tool and gives bad results in my tests.

But with Gemini the API the model does do the OCR resulting in much better accuracy.

They did give an ETA. They said 3.5 Pro would come out in June.

When you make specific claims about a statute you were apparently too lazy to read, then respond with basically “I read the committee notes and surely if the statute was bad, it would say so and/or nobody can ever know what the statute does” when someone discusses the statute, whatever you are doing isn't “epistemological humility.”

No, you are not supposed to treat a politician or their staff’s statement about how their proposed bill works as dispositive and ignore the statutory text or third party analysis.

I’m glad we clarified the epistemological issue, so thank you for replying.

It is strange that half your reply is appeal to the authority of a not on point source and half is epistemological learned helplessness about what the impact of a vetoed bill would have been, pick a side.

You claim you "get the impression" then do not quote either the law or a third party analysis of the law. Apparently we are supposed to believe this does not ban open source because the committee didn't write "This bans open source" in the beginning of the committee notes then circle it 3 times in red pen.

I get the impression you are conflating whether a developer can be sued to oblivion for not implementing a "full shutdown" process that applies to finetunes versus whether they can be sued to oblivion for releasing a model that may cause "critical harm" when finetuned.

I'm confused why you think the only legal requirement is a "full shutdown" process. The text is there and I see a heck of a lot of requirements that are not about full shutdowns.

For context, you just linked to a HUD.gov article that cites its source as fox news.

Don't forget:

"We're open to the idea Claude 4 may be conscious and we prompt Claude to say it's an open question but in other news we'll be deleting Claude 4 next year to make server space for Claude 5.

The filters are really bad.

Yesterday Fable rejected commenting on poetry because it had anatomy lines like:

got anotha round of acetylcholine from da boss.

Your rebuttle seems to be arguing it's okay for a bartender to simultaneously say:

"This is alcohol"

And

"Or maybe it isn't alcohol."

Or to rephrase it, "They tell you the rules at the entrance, they then tell you they don't follow those rules and they are totally serving alcohol even if they are not."

Fable is rejecting as unsafe analysis of poetry that uses formal medical anatomy terms. The guardrails are dumb as dirt.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm a little confused on what is being claimed. The Tumblr article says:

"That healthcare triage tools would underperform on Black patients. That loan approval systems would entrench inequality while presenting their decisions as neutral algorithmic judgment."

Are we talking about language models? Was a lender using a language model?

The paper cited is about language models.

Apparently stable diffusion contained some bad images. The paper title is again, language models. (That stable diffusion claim is weird too. Someone warned us there's too much data to audit then someone audited the data and removed the bad data so the paper is correct?)

Grok is intentionally biased, so I don't think the bad generations are due to amplying the training data, necessarily.

And it's also not clear that manual auditing of training data would ensure anything is safe. Wouldn't models still have plenty of examples of bad behavior from the news?

On bias you wrote:

"The large investments nearly every frontier model development team spends on this problem is probably good enough evidence."

I thought the claim was a bad thing is happening we were warned about.

You are saying the fact they invest in safety means the models are not safe?

Does that mean Anthropic and OpenAI can prove they are safe by firing all the safety researchers?

Also:

"Researchers studying low-resource languages have documented active degradation in translation quality, because the synthetic content fed back into training is itself worse in those languages."

Who knows what this is referring to? I'm not going to search for it but I wouldn't be surprised if it's comedically off point.

I agree. Why is someone's lazy Tumblr hot take getting upvoted here? Are people considering it a good conversation starter or something?

I don't see any substantiation of anything stated in that blog post.

Test it on a professional inference provider to rule out trouble on your end.

I tested Gemma 4 31b for OCR and it's very good at it. This makes sense because I also get the best OCR results from Gemini compared to Claude or ChatGPT in my use case.

I agree the last 30 years in the U.S. hasn't changed all that much due to tech.

It's probably true that phones and social networks have altered the way people think, but not necessarily in a way that's qualitatively different from cable TV changing the way people in the 90s thought compared to people in the 60s...

This is almost certainly not true.

If it was, they wouldn't need to be using the classifiers they are using to warn Gemini about problematic prompts.

Presumably it's in contrast to "fear mode" or "conservative investment" mode.

Warren Buffet has famously said, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful."

As long as Chinese firms are releasing good open models I imagine there isn't a huge downside for Google to release state of the art small models to compete in the "free" space.

Meta released a major new closed source model a month or so ago.

It didn't make a splash like a new open source release would have.

Opus 4.7 and presumably 4.8 are more expensive due to a new tokenizer that translates data into more tokens per input.

There already was such an effort but Trump lacks enough federal reserve votes to succeed at present.

Hinton says things like

"...we're optimized for having not many experiences. You only live for about a billion seconds—that's assuming you don't learn anything after you're 30, which is pretty much true. So you live for about a billion seconds and you've got a 100 trillion connections. So [you've] got crazily more parameters than you have experiences. So our brains [are] optimized for making the best use of not very many experiences."

> Can public markets go higher? Shiller P/E is closing in on the peak of the dot-com bubble:

Shiller PE is near 44. Japan had an equivalent price to earnings ratio of over 70 during their 1989 bubble.

I know I saw Geoffrey Hinton say humans operate with much less training data in a talk.

It doesn't strike me as a claim that should be controversial.

As far as I know nobody can train A.I. to push a shopping cart based on a human child's training set. It's mostly not relevant to the task.

Your wiktionary link indicates it is not a common expression in English but instead something "rationalist community" people say.

What's laughable is an OpenAI employee invented the term "PHD level intelligence" and you think that " PHD Level intelligence" is a real term that describes a real thing and you are repeating it here.

Most people probably want to get a game and play it without figuring out how to navigate pirate web sites.

Is it possible that a lot of people are hoping for a dot-com bubble 2.0 so they can sell at the market peak before it pops?

That would explain why they're ignoring fundamentals.

They could think that OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs will drive prices higher, and it still isn't time to sell.