vb-8448

What's your point?

It's even worse, we are crossing over into the realm of religion. The article against GML 5.3 is the equivalent of a Papal excommunication.

It's "I saw it on Google" on steroids.

Let's put this way: we need open models to protect against their rogue agents!

Hypocrites !

Project and top/middle managers exists basically to keep track of what other people are doing and to make sure deadlines are met and processes are followed.

A "dot" can replace easily tons of them.

i'm watching the keynote

The real announcement is the ultra fast mode ... Astra at 300t/s is insane!

They finally managed to get rid of project, middle and top managers!

Next natural step: CEOs staring tens of dots to control other humans and agents XD

My gut feeling is that the intent or motivation or whatsoever won't arrive from a single model but will be the result of several things: a frontier model for long reasoning sessions, some jev like models for more immediate actions, some improvements that will make the context rot less relevant, faster and more energy efficient models, a harness that coordinates everything.

Already today we can build some "fight or flight" mechanisms, and once you have done it the "intent" is not so far.

But the selling point is "its cheaper to run on api compared to codex/cc" ... but I, and a lot of folks, don't use API.

Wow .. fascinating but I guess something like JEV is more appropriate here.

I agree with OP that we will continue to see improvements, but there are also some serious bottlenecks ahead of us:

- Energy is not infinite, neither energy efficiency is. - Datacentres neither. - Benchmarks are an abstraction of real world problems!

On top, there is an overall "economic" aspect that most of the people miss: every change carries a certain degree of risk (lose money, reputation, customers, death of people, ecc) that very few want to take and a lot of changes(e.g. rewrite some piece of SW in another Lang) don't produce a positive economic impact.

Does it support subscriptions ? If not it's a no go for me.

Definitely not a musk fan, but what exact is your point? Other big labs aren't innocent little virgins.

They want transparency from everyone else but not for them ... you don't say.

They just care much more about their user's data.

I heard some of their employees sent to do some PR in podcasts: they are definitively disconnected from the reality.

Maybe internally they see really unbelievable things, but my impression is that they pushed so hard on agents that they don't have the grasp of the situation.

They have AGI, but they don't have $20 of token budget to add a so basic functionality.

1: There are corner cases, no doubt, but the main source of information should remain near the code.

2 & 3: How to be sure that the agent will pick the "append only hint" from the memory? Especially when it starts growing and cannot be part of the context?

But how you are going to link the "keep this logical path ..." with the code? You cannot feed all the memory to the agent because of the context rot, and you are not sure the agent will always pick it when needed.

> Global memory

I don't get why we need global memory for code? Aren't code comments (even if invented for humans) the ideal place where to put "memories"?

Isn't this against TOS of OAI?

The problem is that Pi, on any third party harness, cannot really compete with codex or cc due to subscriptions.

Even better: force them to release weights.

I'd argue that those traces MUST be made public!

Yeah, the compute is definitively another way to make them slow down, just cap the amount of TFLOPS available and things will slow down.

Obviously this will have huge impact on some companies valuations, but you can have one's cake and eat it too.

It doesn't have to propagate itself, that is the skynet scenario.

To make a lot of damage it's enough to create a ransomware with a time bomb that self propagates and start breaching systems left and right. At that point, if you don't catch it in time, the damage will be huge (and given the shitty procedures and practices these labs have in place it's not so improbable).

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.”

I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the "accountability" word. Why these companies are allowed to damage others with impunity?

Start making managers pay the price for their actions, and watch how the models magically slow down on their own.

> Historically, many of these problems were bottlenecked by human attention. Someone had to care enough to spend hours or days reading obscure material, testing unpromising ideas, tracing references, and trying things that might go nowhere

I wonder how many of the recent results are due to the fact that very few looked at the problem to start with. Still great results, but the general impression is that it's more about the so many low-hanging fruits than the actual capability.

Everyone agreeing on something is not even possible on small local scales, just imagine the situation on a global scale.

It's not a challenge at all because it's not possible, it's just empty rhetoric to push their own agenda.