Love your point. Instructions found to be good by trial and error for one LLM may not be good for another LLM.

> Love your point. Instructions found to be good by trial and error for one LLM may not be good for another LLM.

Well, according to this story, instructions refined by trial and error over months might be good for one LLM on Tuesday, and then be bad for the same LLM on Wednesday.

And BrowserStack either doesn't know this or knows this and isn't telling. Still bad, in my opinion.

Accuracy matters. Pizzas and tires are both round, but you do different things with them.

I like this sort of study- but it really misses the point to not give more credit for some of the observations and designs to Codd and others.

I encourage Dyson sphere enthusiasts to listen to the interesting argument that Dyson spheres they may be deliberately designed as an "sounds neat but is impossible" filter joke, ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLzEX1TPBFM .

(Thanks to the maintainers of yt-dlp and of whisper-cpp, and to OpenAI for training Whisper. It makes this kind of task actually bearable.)

There are no actual claims about Dyson spheres in the video? It's literally just "Dyson published a paper, I claim without evidence that Dyson intended it as a joke, people who believe it are gullible fools, therefore it's impossible, also I found someone else's blog post who doesn't know what they're talking about, also desiring the expansion of humanity is evil and eugenics"? Can you summarise an actual argument from the video?

Sped through that, couldn't stomach the whole thing. Is there more to it than "argument by sneering dismissal"? (Basically, so far as I can tell, her point seems to be "this was intended as a joke to see if you're stupid, so if you believe it, you are, neener-neener!")

Somehow I new before clicking that it was going to be Angela.

Two years ago: AI does not exist but it will ruin everything anyway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrOxh_0leE

Telling it to "challenge your beliefs" prompting for text that imitates challenging your beliefs. That may not be as re-centering as one would hope.

A rich person engineering their own RNA modifications for their dog? Yeah, I don't want that and bureaucracy is how we voice that.

It is "to survive floods" not to "survive drowning."

Really worth watching. This is something one can complain about, and therefore maybe something one can try to fix.

So many tech companies have the "high values" screed that it really just seems like a standard step in the money plan.

Practically the entire tech industry, including many of the higher ups currently camping out on the right, used to be firmly in a sort of centrist-with-social-justice-characteristics camp. Then many of those same people enthusiastically stood with Trump at his inauguration. It's completely reasonable that people have their doubts now.

It's also completely reasonable to expect that if Anthropic is the real deal and opposed to where the current agenda setters want to take things, they'll be destroyed for it.

Destroyed? No. But a new sharif is gonna show up while the existing exit stage left with big bags of nuts.

> enthusiastically stood with Trump

I think "enthusiastically" looks different. They had to choose between kissing Trumps butt to make good business for 4 years or see their companies at a severe disadvantage. I'm not saying what they did was good, nor do I support it. But from a business angle it's not hard to see why they chose to do that. If you'd ask them privately off the record then I'm sure most of them would tell you that Trump is an idiot and dangerous.

Mark Zuckerberg was in a big hurry to call Trump a "badass" in the wake of the Butler hoax, and is clearly trying to appeal to the right with his cultivated jiu jitsu Chad image. It doesn't mean a damn thing what these CEOs are willing to say behind closed doors when their public decisions are to remain in lockstep with the agenda and fire anyone who asks questions about whether it's the right one.

That is a neat variation.