The AI Enhancements section was interesting. I've been wondering about the best practices for agents interacting with long-running dev servers, and Astro 7's approach (run in background and have a logs command) seems like a good model.
Of these models, only Kimi had anything on me and it was pretty inaccurate.
When Fable was accessible, I asked it about myself and it had some accurate information about me. It's neat. It feels a tiny bit like I got to sign the Voyager probe. I wonder if Fable was trained on a significantly different selection of data or if it's just better at retaining rare details it saw in its training.
Is there any interpretation where Amazon is involved but for a reason besides trying to screw over Anthropic? I don't see why Amazon would act against Anthropic when they have a deal to offer Anthropic models on AWS.
LLMs remind me of being a kid again being in wonder of all the possible things that could be done with a computer that haven't been figured out yet. The internet was relatively new and everyone had their own ideas of what that would enable. Fast forward to a few years ago and it was easy to believe that a lot of the low-hanging fruit of things an individual could do with the internet, apps, 3d graphics, etc, had been decently picked over and that things were stabilizing. Now I have no idea again what computing will look like in 5 years and it's exciting.
Nestlé can give us our daily allowance of baby formula and [AI corporation winner] can give us our daily allowance of free compute. These years will bring interesting times!
If we already were at the point that AI could self-direct effectively, then the world would already be very different (eg AI-driven technological progress and unemployment) in a way that we might have wished we prepared for more.
Do you mean policy-wise (like Dario is talking about), or more broadly?
I wonder about broad preparedness, but unfortunately there's not a lot that we "normal" people can do to prepare. Hoard savings and food? Learn physical trades?
They believe they're going to eventually develop AI that's capable of recursive self improvement into world-redefining super-intelligence. I wouldn't expect someone in that position to risk giving away their lead. I expect we're going to see more of the top labs selectively holding back their best stuff.
I accept your point, in the sense that I wouldn't suggest that they have any obligation to share their own research.
What seems to be different here, is that they are saying they won't let you use their tool to do your own research.
It is a subtle but important difference. They aren't saying "we have secret sauce we won't share", they seem to be saying "we will prevent the tool you are paying for from independently creating a competing idea".
This isn't that surprising after it was reported on that he had notes about claiming to "come out as a Republican and against the woke agenda" as a PR plan to defend himself. (https://gizmodo.com/sbf-floated-coming-out-republican-tucker...) I wonder if Trump is selling pardons and whether SBF still has the means for it. It's depressing that the US's state of affairs is such that this might be a workable strategy for him.
reply