Robust Mirror

They certainly don’t want people running their own models but it’s a stretch to say they orchestrated it rather than it being a side effect of what they were doing anyway.

In any case I’m largely referring to what we have been told by independent researchers. Yes anyone in the field should be taken with a grain of salt but it is far more ridiculous to make entire conclusions based on nothing but vibes and a dislike of AI.

They don’t own an AI model, and there are objectively 2 different models owned by 2 different companies in that article. I have no idea what you think you are reading.

That’s fine. It is probably worth noting human written code that has been reviewed by 1000s of humans are having valid critical bugs found in them by AI. No one is forcing you to use it but humans aren’t magically perfect just because you don’t like AI.

If you aren’t even going to attempt to read things I don’t know how to help you much more. Them selling something doesn’t make the research automatically wrong.

I’m done with this conversation now. I’m fine with people disagreeing with me but you are not even trying to discuss in good faith.

https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/anthropic-subscriptions-offer-5x

Yes there is such evidence. You can argue all day about whether the evidence is up to your standard, but it does exist. Remember that evidence does not have to be hard, absolute facts directly from a primary source. It can be inferences based on the information we have available to us.

When deciding whether someone committed a crime, for example, we do not need them to tell us directly or have footage of them doing it to have evidence we can weigh.

Sure, but assuming we can trust what we have been told so far. Regardless IPO is very soon, there they can’t easily lie or hide anything. If the first part is meant to be “see, you agree”, my point is the amount they need to change by isn’t necessarily as big as some might think.

In any case what happens is what happens, I just like to weigh as much evidence as possible when looking at these things before making assumptions.

It’s not as bad as you think. Anthropic is running at a loss at max usage. Openai isn’t. And even Anthropic profits if you use 20% of your quota or less each month. They would only have to move the price up if it became a real issue. Or cut usage cap down (that’s mostly how openai does it, $20 gets you less total tokens, there’s nuance to whether this is automatically worse though). But not as dramatically as you might think. It would lock out many hobbyists, but not companies that have come to rely on it.

I have it create things for me that I would otherwise never have. I wanted an app for dream tracking. They were either pay walled, didn’t have the features I wanted, or both. Ai created what I wanted in a weekend. That’s just one example. I’ve created many single use apps as well.

If I’m at a takeaway store I take a photo of the board and it makes me an interactive menu that totals the price of what everyone wants and let’s us browse without trying to see the board and get in people’s way.

I don’t expect anyone else to use these. I don’t expect anyone else to want to use them. Though they’re welcome to. But if I can have a thing create exactly what I want and use it why not?

“but what if it has a bug and you lose a year of journals”. Well it created me manual timestamped backups as well as automatic timestamped backups to oauth Dropbox in a dedicated folder without the app having access to the rest of my Dropbox. It could crash everything and I would have every single thing safe in 2 places up to the most recent entry. And they’re just text files. I could take them anywhere if AI disappeared and the app broke tomorrow. I could just continue writing in notepad in the worst case until I found something else. But the app looks nicer and does interesting things.

The alternative to this isn’t me learning to code and spending months creating them. The alternative is them never existing.

So who? The jury? The judge? The prosecutor? You would simply have no one attempt to give the death penalty in the case they could be wrong, which is almost always technically a possibility. Which is mostly just the same as not having it.

First thing to my mind. It’s near word for word with neuroplasticity bolted on.