lwarfield

I've always seen Balcony Solar as a policy failure. It shows that the equivalent amount of grid scale solar is too hard/expensive to make due to permitting and regulation failures.

In an ideal world Balcony Solar shouldn't exist because grid power is cheap and plentiful.

Von Nuemann is one of those names that when ever it comes up I sarcastically mentally note "John f***ing Neumann, AGAIN!". It's happened so many times in my studies that I think he might be the most important scientist to have ever lived.

He's also the inspiration for one of favorite characters in fiction, Sherkaner Underhill from A Deepness In The Sky*. :)

Looking at the diagram in the gh repo, it looks like this is entirely jev. Are there any examples of people having a big model like Fable handle high level goals?

If the author would like, I self computed a j lens for the 27b version of the qwen model. I used it for my own exploration in this area, and can share it if you want.

Same for me. Every single time I tried it got flagged. I think this will be my litnus test for if the safeguards are good enough for benign requests.

Best museum in Seattle! It also feels a lot more "hands on", than most museums.

\s Take my angry upvote!

Personally I'm curious to the point of doing borderline LLM archecture research. This come from genuine curiosity, and not a want to use LLMs better.

I haven't gotten much out of for using LLMs though. It makes me understand the short comings of LLMs, and I feel like I got an early insight into how important context management is.

I currently have fable organize a bunch of 5.6 sol agents when working on my personal projects. This makes me wonder if I should add something along the lines of "For tasks that involve visual analysis, have gemini 3.7 look at images generated."

Overall I've been hooked on using agents from different companies for what they are best at (Thanks to Theo). Fable is expensive, but unmatched for planning and top level organization of other agents. Sol is fast, will persistantly go after goals (sometimes to its detriment), and does well with computer use.

I've always wondered why the industry relies on the giant monolithic system prompt. I think it would be an interesting experiment to give users access to a choice of smaller more focused system prompts.

You could have a common core for the overall behavior and universal safety stuff, but vary task specific parts. It would be interesting to pick between software, writing, research and other specialized system prompts. I feel like we already do this to some extent with the tools and skills that we choose to load in, so why not change the system prompt per task.

Yes it is:

> Same model weights as Mythos 5, deployed with higher-coverage safeguards (see Section 4.5.2.2)

> 6.2 [Appendix redacted] > This appendix describes the criteria for our blocking bioclassifier exemption policy, and has been redacted from the public version of this report for security reasons.

>6.3 [Appendix redacted] > This appendix, redacted from the public version of this report, details the changes made to our constitution to expand classifier coverage to harmful uses in scope for the CB-2 threat model but not the CB-1 threat model, as described in Section 4.5.2.1.

interesting...

EDIT: After reading more I'd recommend looking at Transcript 2.20.A. Its a transcript of claude going over the redactions in the report. The section says its specifically for section 2, but the transcript also mentions other sections.

> More capable than Mythos 5 in some areas, less capable in others; overall slightly more capable.

This sounds like it might be a Mythos finetune for some specific task.

EDIT: After reading some more reading, it looks like model 2 might be an AI research fine tune based off the section 3.4.3 CoBench