davidhs

It is not as you feel any different when you are being recorded. Once recorded, you don't know what they will do with the video.

I recommend trying Codex too. In fact, I recommend running them side-by-side if you have the budget, e.g. have both independently plan the same feature or implement in a different worktree, or have them critique each other's work.

I personally find GPT-5.5 to be a better programmer than Opus 4.8, it is extremely thorough, but I don't like the code it generates ("austere"), and find Opus 4.8 to write more "human friendly" code. The programming comments GPT-5.5 makes is pretty awful where-as Opus 4.8 is good. I feel like Opus 4.8 is better at grasping my intention than GPT-5.5, and honestly find GPT-5.5 to be kind of "autistic". I do prefer the language (not the writing) of GPT-5.5, as I find the philosophical flowery language of Opus 4.8 kind of annoying.

I have only managed to try Fable 5 a little bit, which feels like a much more generally smarter version of Opus 4.8, that is much better a programming and grasping your intention, and I think even the intention of your code, and is _really_ good at spotting bugs or problems with logic in your code. It feels wicked smart but is extemely expensive. It feels smart in the sense like it has a "bigger brain" and is much more sensitive to subtleties/details.

These are different "brains", have different "personalities", etc. I think the best thing is to develop a feeling for it yourself.

> Looks like it's going to be a thoroughly frustrating experience, even worse than initial rollout.

Honestly, why bother with it? They are effectively just releasing the model in-name, but we just get Opus 4.8.

Mice have the best drugs.

There are people interested in overcoming aphantasia (or hypophantasia, an extremely weak form of imagination).

Today I have medium-ish hypophantasia, but I remember when I was doing phantasia exercises, in particular "snapshotting" and "memory streaming", at least two times, there was a subtle shift in my perception and all of a sudden I could remember a ton of things, as if I opened a door. It would only last maybe 10-20 minutes (I would practice 30 - 60 minutes per day).

It wouldn't surprise me a bunch of those memories are in the brain but you just don't have access to them in everyday waking consciousness.

So, for me, it feels like a lot of my memories are visually indexed, and if I can't visualize then I can't remember, but once I configure my mind through meditation and these exercises, it is like I can "tune my mind" to mind's eye access (radio/TV analogy here) and with it the memories.

Then once I stopped the exercise (for the day) it would go away in around 10-20 minutes (kind of like how a muscle pump goes away rather quickly after exercising).

Maybe if Terence Tao had memorized the entire Internet (and pretty much all media), then maybe he would find bits and pieces of the problem remind him of certain known solutions and be able to connect the dots himself.

But, I don't know. I tend to view these (reasoning) LLMs as alien minds and my intuition of what is perhaps happening under the hood is not good.

I just know that people have been using these LLMs as search engines (including Stephen Wolfram), browsing through what these LLMs perhaps know and have connected together.

It looks like these models work pretty well as natural language search engines and at connecting together dots of disparate things humans haven't done.

> It’s almost certainly not

AIs are RLHF'd to have a corporate-pleasing interface w.r.t. metrics.

The strength of the glasses alters the size of the image that lands on your retinas. More (-) means a smaller image thus you stop seeing movement much closer to the focal point.

Do you? Don't you just halt and say this is too complex?

If the internal representation of Tesla Autopilot is similar to what the UI displays, i.e. the location of the w.r.t. to everything else, and we had a human whose internal representation is similar, everything jumping around in consciousness, we’d be insane to allow him to drive.

Self-driving is probably “AI-hard” as you’d need extensive “world knowledge” and be able to reason about your environment and tolerate faulty sensors (the human eyes are super crappy with all kinds of things that obscure it, such as veins and floaters).

Also, if the Waymo UI accurately represents what it thinks is going on “out there” it is surprisingly crappy. If your conscious experience was like that when you were driving you’d think you had been drugged.

> Yes machine learning vision systems hallucinate, but so do humans.

When was the last time you had full attention on the road and a reflection of light made you super confused and suddenly drive crazy? When was the last time you experienced objects behaving erratically around you, jumping in and out of place, and perhaps morphing?

Honestly, on an iPhone, I wish I could completely mute/disable the Phone app, so when it calls it doesn't overtake whatever you are doing, or just delete it.

> I know they seemed to be trying to temper our expectations leading up to this

Before the release of the model Sam Altman tweeted a picture of the Death Star appearing over the horizon of a planet.

LLMs can be useful when you have access to a verifier or verification process.