I don't think Anthropic wants a stable experience on their consumer subscription plans. It is just used for customer acquisition who will then ask their employer to pay for enterprise plan(assuming most employer care about data control) which is based on tokens.
Most coders don't pay for tokens themselves. It's just on reddit and HN you would think that everybody does.
I pay for my tokens for my own projects, at least when the ones Google seems willing to keep throwing at me for free don't cut it. I'd think that's not too uncommon, especially here where there's likely a high ratio of hobby coders (whether also professionals or otherwise).
Free tier Gemini is good enough for my personal projects and hopefully a local model can replace it before i ever personally pay for a single token from anyone.
I would guess that it's hard to compete with Google without a consumer component. Most enterprises already have contracts and policies with Google, so anything driven from the top-down is likely to prefer Google.
(And failing that, there was a real risk for OpenAI to be the default for enterprises.)
To defeat that, you need to frontline employees the chance to experience better tooling and models which is where the subsidized subscriptions come in.
That is a terrible metric to look into. Github being down is news, but on a long enough time horizon Gitlab or other provider isn't significantly better. It's just they are in news less often.
> on a long enough time horizon Gitlab or other provider isn't significantly better
I suspect the same. But do you have any evidence for this? The status pages of Github and Gitlab (more precisely their history pages) don't seem to be a good starting point for comparisons. Anything I find online are people reporting their own experiences, and it's difficult to tell how accurate they are, how many users were truely affected etc. The only thing I can vouch for is that Github has got more unreliable - adding to the hearsay myself...
Yudkowsky's solution of detecting and physically shutting down non complying datacenter, including bombing if the country doesn't cooperate, isn't too much out of the question.
We would have done the same if it is about virus or nuclear weapons, and AI could become serious existential threat in the next 5 years.
Do you think it's possible to bomb China's AI datacenters? They are already here, and they are progressing AI at their will. What will others do about it?
It is possible for US to bomb anything. Just the retaliation could be huge.
Would you had said the same thing if a country like was developing and testing deadly virus on live population. I think in 5 years, it is possible that the AI will become that topic(if we assume AI becomes good and start hacking and controlling everything).
More or less of an existential threat than a conflict between nuclear powers because one of them decided to launch a unilateral strike against a datacentre located outside one of their cities just in case it hosted a particularly dangerous chatbot?
Trolley problem. What's worse than all of humanity dead from ASI?
Sam Altman: "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. There are other threats that I think are more certain to happen (for example, an engineered virus with a long incubation period and a high mortality rate) but are unlikely to destroy every human in the universe in the way that SMI could."
most of humanity dead because some morons decided to try to kill everyone just in case the server farm evolved the inclination and the capacity to try to kill everyone...
Trolley problem: on the left track is a class of schoolchildren. On the right track is a a computer which a Harry Potter fanfic author argues has magic powers and the marketing department of Apple kind of agrees. Do you let Eliezer persuade you to kill the kids?
no one dead because we're willing to use our means to enforce a restriction on a scenario that is likely on our trajectory to kill everyone. We also use serious threats to prevent nuclear proliferation that endangers everyone
Serious threats which have completely failed to persuade North Korea et al to stop pursuing nukes. The closest we've actually come to a nuclear exchange was "using serious threats" during the Cuban missile crisis, and the US is currently losing a war nominally to prevent nuclear proliferation to a state that fortunately doesn't actually have the capacity to retaliate except at very short range. You might remember a few other nominally intelligence-lead claims about weapons of mass destruction too not amounting to very much either...
And in this case we're not talking about bombing sites if they appear to be used for uranium enrichment which isn't exactly an everyday need, we're talking about bombing them if they appear to be optimised to contain lots of computers. You don't even have to be an AI sceptic to imagine a policy of threatening to launch missile strikes on Chinese businesses if they build out capacity in a way distant observers don't like might be more likely to result in millions of deaths than the whatever runs on the Chinese business' computers...
New cloth used to be luxury when I was a kid. Now everyone has 100s of pieces. I remember sewing and wearing cloth, and no one does it now. Also he kinda answered his question:
> it(natural fiber cloth) lasted less than shirts I’ve paid 5€ for
For being offline and in silence, it is as achievable as ever, if not more. Companies/friends etc. now are more respectful of time and being offline or not picking up call now than they were 20 years ago.
How? Like, do you think a book published 100 years ago has a digital file sitting around a publishing house that might even exist anymore? Re-publishig of old books are often based on scans (the originals were literally pressed into paper by metal, not printed off hard drives), and if the books don't exist, they can't re-scan.
I own some antique Japanese books that have very few copies in existence. You couldn't get them re-printed if you want to if the physical book didn't exist anymore. For a few books, I've actually purchased incredibly high-quality scans that cost me hundreds of dollars because to produce the re-issues, people had to go to museums with high-powered cameras to photograph the pages under supervision of a curator. There's no digital file to print from the publisher. If those books were gone, there's no bringing them back.
Do you understand that many of these publishers do not have the original copy anymore, and may have gone out of business entirely? 50 years ago text was not backed up to the cloud.
If there are very few copies and no one wants to even spend $100 to scan it, likely the book wont be bought by anyone in any case and it would rot/thrown away in another 50 years if AI companies had not digitized it.
Which is what has happened over time now that humanity has the ability to digitize them. The problem arises when we are purposefully picking books where we know those scans aren't yet available and purposefully destroying them. There'd be less outrage if any of these companies made statements about guaranteeing the survival of the scans they are taking and the release or planned guaridanship in the case they can no longer maintain the data.
Who is digitizing the books which are rare? Isn't it even more valuable to digitize for them now that they have new buyer which can pay 100s of times more.
Anna's Archive is a controversial example with that as a stated goal. But more to the point most of the people doing it aren't seeking to profit from digitizing these books so the 'monetary value' of them is not the yard stick or motivator. A higher monetary value could actually make it harder for these projects as they can rely on donations of books or even waiting for someone who wants a book they bought so they can spend that on the next one (which is less useful if the next one on your list was bought to destroy by the same person who bought the book you finished scanning).
They're often books tied to a region, i.e. stories about a local fisherman's life and how they overcame adapting a boat to local feedstock, or the engineering that went into building the local train station. That's to say they can have little value to those outside the area but are still a rich read for locals, tourists, and those who move to the region or have a love for a place. I expect we'll see a concerted effort to organise to get these kind of book sent to regional mueseums for scanning now that people are aware they are actively being destroyed and they realise the timeline isn't how long the book can last.
Why does static site of Europe's parliament need big cookie banner? Or is that the parliament which created this law doesn't know what you know or they are doing "malicious compliance".
I know the technical reason. I was contesting the GP's comment that most site display banner "Instead of complying". Most website needs basic tracking and there is nothing wrong in it.
We are just conditioned to see it without difference in basic tracking and tracking all your clicks across site and selling it to advertisers.
Because they use a commercial service (AT Internet) for analytics and visitor tracking as stated in their cookies policy and cookie inventory. This information is readily available through the cookie banner.
No one claimed gpt-3.5-turbo doesn't have any degradation over davinci-003. In fact it was quite obvious that gpt-3.5 had way less knowledge but more post trained to be helpful.
That quite strong "no one" surprised me so I checked and looking through a few blog posts from back then, they did advertise gpt-3.5-turbo as a straight up improvement and, once text-davinci-003 was to be deprecated, the instruct tuned variant as the drop in replacement [0]. If anything, they did not just promise similar performance but actually an improvement ("our best model") when compared to text-davinci-003:
> It’s also our best model for many non-chat use cases—we’ve seen early testers migrate from text-davinci-003 to gpt-3.5-turbo with only a small amount of adjustment needed to their prompts.
That's why I still remember this so well, they claimed one model to be their best and a straight up drop-in during deprecation when in my (back then even more amateurish then today) testing this was plainly not the case. A model cannot be "best" if it's measurably worse in many situations, then what was still available at the time.
Doctors pay has been increasing a lot and it has nothing to do with union. In fact they just do one thing, lobby to not allow a perfectly good set of students to go to college.
> Meta/Googly/Claudy will say... oh nice, let's download it and run it...
You can run it for like <$50/hr. You don't need to be Meta/Googly/Claudy for that. For batch inference it makes sense to run it yourself(high latency, high throughput, predefined workload for few hours or day).
Most coders don't pay for tokens themselves. It's just on reddit and HN you would think that everybody does.
reply