xlbuttplug2

So far the next tier has only demonstrated that they can catch up to, but not necessarily leapfrog, what the top tier has put out publicly.

I suspect the top labs will come up with a business model that doesn't involve handing out their secret sauce for everyone else to reverse engineer. Perhaps restricting their top models to select high paying government/enterprise contracts. Or maybe a bespoke "describe the problem and we'll solve it for you" type service.

Eventually the top labs are going to collude and simply not release their best models to the public (if they aren't doing that already).

I presume post training is significantly easier than the distillation/training the top Chinese labs are doing.

I wonder if, similar to the American labs, they'll become stingy with their weights once they start getting immediately undercut by a wave of slightly better derived models.

Well, are you planning to do something with this information or are you just claiming to be self aware? :)

Well this got buried quick..

I'm lucky enough to not notice my tinnitus except when I try to do nothing.

I think you're equating doing nothing with doing nothing productive. You're usually still ruminating or trying to distract yourself from the source of the pressure.

I wonder how long it'll be before AI labs find a revenue stream that doesn't involve renting out their models, and stop letting us ride on their coattails.

They'd tease us with solutions to hard problems, with code that is orders of intelligence higher than any human or public model can grok.

That'd turn all the whining to begging real quick.

I'm guessing the next generation of US frontier models will be heavily anti-distillation at the cost of user experience (significant rate limiting, more flat out refusals, hidden thinking, etc).

And as long as they maintain a significant advantage in capability, we will continue to kiss the ring.

May not be very effective if so.

I'm assuming finding vulnerabilities in open source projects is the hard part and what you need the frontier models for. Writing an exploit given a vulnerability can probably be delegated to less scrupulous models.

It's also trading at a huge premium. Probably worth a read if you're considering it: https://www.morningstar.com/funds/fundrise-innovation-is-not...

My hunch is it's a combination of

* coming in with a bias of not wanting it to work

* having too high of an expectation

* giving up too early

* not trying SOTA models

* not taking the effort to communicate intuitive or painfully obvious things

But perhaps it is too dumb to solve the type of problems you guys are working on and no amount of cajoling will help. All I know is "it works for me."

In my case, the volume of code is roughly the same. I'm not using the efficiency towards pumping out more code, just using it to be AFK more.

I spend enough time iterating and refining to the point I'm comfortable taking ownership of the outputted code. Perhaps hypocritically, I do mald when people upload code for review that they clearly haven't taken the effort to read through critically.

More like a day's worth of coding condensed into half an hour. Time to review/test is mostly unchanged.

Day to day is mainly minor feature additions into a stable product so not a huge amount of code churn.

Is that you, boss?

People with a lower multiplier are either in the minority of developers solving genuinely hard/novel problems or, more likely, they've just not figured out how to tap into AI's potential.

Granted, to your point, a decent chunk of the HN crowd belongs to the former and can't relate to us paycheck stealers.

> they aren't even making 1.5x developers

I won't try to speak for anyone other than myself, but my multiplier is definitely over 1.5x, probably higher than 5x.

I choose to sit on my hands in my freed up time so upper management does not catch on to and exploit this fact. Eventually they will though via overzealous coworkers.

My probably incorrect, uninformed hunch is that users convinced of how AI should act actually end up nerfing its capabilities with their prompts. Essentially dumbing it down to their level, losing out on the wisdom it's gained through training.

"But we anonymize prompts before training!"

Meanwhile the prompt: Crop this photo of my passport

Or simply embrace ignorance. Why hold on to things you don't use? Accept AI as an extension to your brain, and let the now dormant parts atrophy.

Yes, you will be vulnerable should you lose access to AI at some point, but the same goes for a limb. You will adapt.

Huh. I'd never thought of this. If that is actually meaningfully beneficial, I wonder if they'd design self driving cars with the seats facing backwards, given there's no longer a necessity to look at the road.

(edit: I guess it's more of no-brainer on a train/bus where you don't have a seat belt)

Would you have a problem if AI was no longer a tool but the artist itself (i.e. no human intervention)?

People seem to have an irrational fear of being entertained by AI, equating that to admitting that it is a higher form of intelligence than their own.

Surely they've reserved the best models for themselves and have people looking into how to optimally harness untapped potential from LLMs?

Edit: I guess the competition between them keeps them honest and forces them to release their best models so they don't lose face.

> They can and most likely will release something that vaporises the thin moat you have built around their product.

As they should if they're doing most of the heavy lifting.

And it's not just LLM adjacent startups at risk. LLMs have enabled any random person with a claude code subscription to pole vault over your drying up moat over the course of a weekend.

You can still do all these things manually. Now you just have the option not to.

The article says the man was trying to see the squirrel's back implying a larger radius.

But yeah if your circuit completely fits inside the other person's circuit, then you've been gone around, no matter how slow or fast you both are.

That the man technically went around the squirrel without ever having caught up to it.

Say instead of just walking, the man was laying down a net/barricade around the tree. As soon as the man completes the circumference, the squirrel must admit that it has been gone around.

I have very fond memories of playing the Pokemon games, but I always saw the battling aspect as a hurdle to unlocking more of the story/world, which was the true appeal to me. I was content turning my brain off and overleveling my mons. Different strokes, I guess.

I have the exact opposite prediction. LLMs may end up writing most code, but humans will still want to review what's being written. We should instead be making life easier for humans with more verbose syntax since it's all the same to an LLM. Information dense code is fun to write but not so much to read.

Even lay-er person, but maybe the specificity is not that impressive in mice? Perhaps when you scale to more complex animals it is inevitable to see false positives (detrimental effects to healthy cells)?