nsingh2

I think big reasoning LLMs are just the wrong architecture for live games like this, latency is going to be crap given that every token requires an entire forward pass through the model.

Card games or turn based strategy are much better suited.

> Read my other comment in the thread. Why would I post a non-sincere comment on this anyway?

HN is social media, saner than most, but I still don't assume sincerity.

> Yet, saying this simple stance just as I did now, that both of them are guilty, will have people call you an "ultra" or call you a conspiracy theorist, that you are a fence sitter, that you don't know what you are talking about, and so and so on.

If you mean people online, then that's expected. It's what I meant by social media being unproductive. Hostility attracts engagement and makes it more visible.

National politics is heavily influenced by economic interests, including global capital. And as wealth concentrates so does political power. That doesn't mean ordinary citizens have no political agency though, don't underestimate the difference you can make in your local community.

> not resentful or passive nihilism

To be more precise, it was passive nihilism I was criticizing. That's the sentiment I sensed in the original comment.

I don't know how sincere this comment is, but if there are others thinking this way, it's a mistake. Nihilism is a dead end (or political cynicism/fatalism, whatever you want to call it).

Social media is a veil of manipulation, engagement maximization, and bots. Do not misconstrue it as any kind of real or productive politics. There is a signal there amongst the noise, but it's hard to make sense of if you do not have a coherent world model or belief system. You have to learn to cut through it if you want to keep your sanity.

Note that paper is saying that the lean proof and the natural language proof do not necessarily coincide. It is not saying that the lean proof is wrong, just that the lean proof does not necessarily mean the natural language proof is correct.

> The notable difference to me is tokens/sec are still much higher on 6.1 Sol

This is also the reason why I'm swapping over to Anthropic for a month. 6.1 Sol seems good, but is unbearably slow even with 6.1 being more token efficient than 5.5.

One approximation of this is the experimental context management Codex has been moving towards (not released yet). Rather than relying on summary compaction, the model maintains notes as it works and as it approaches the context limit. A new session is just a fresh context with those notes attached, and a pointer back to the previous session.

Not exactly like what this paper is suggesting, but similar in the sense it lets the model decide what and how to persist across turns.

I recreated this in Pi, with a max token limit on how long the note can be, to pressure the model to be concise. Ends up being cheaper than summary compaction too.

I hope more open weight models are released, with more Cyber capabilities and with no limitations.

I despise this kind of paternalism by Antropic/OpenAI.

I don't understand why they didn't call 6-Sol just 6-Terra. It was 5.6-Terra level pricing with a perf jump.

Yes but it was underwhelming, so they seem to have rushed 6.1 Sol out. Also Opus 5.5 may have spooked them too.