robswc

I guess I'm missing something but I don't see how this isn't just:

1. Creating more work 2. Shifting the existing work to specification

There's not really such a thing as a perfect specification. One of the things AI is taking away is character by character feedback cycles. Can't count how many times I'll be writing software and think in the middle of writing a return, realize this is probably not what I should be doing. I'm not sure how you would really replicate that experience when creating specs... nobody is going to sit and meditate on their specs for hours before writing them.

I have been ringing this bell for years.

When I first started software, I thought it was the weirdest thing in the world for everyone to go "ok next step, download 1000 different pieces of code from 100 different places."

The only thing missing was the financial incentive, and ease of entry... and man if crypto + AI haven't got that combo down.

Sure. I can see how the problems being solved would be very different, and would require "re-training." I'm wondering though how much is it the LLMs and how much is it the humans driving them? Could this have been done with the models currently accessible? Could I have just prompted "solve this conjecture" and hand the work over to a PhD to verify? Or is it "unlimited budget" + "super smart ppl prompting" + "SOTA model" ?

I guess I just see this like how NASA went to the moon. In theory there wasn't a lot stopping us from going besides a good reason (and money). OpenAI has a good reason (PR) and money, so they're doing it. Will these things stop coming out after funding and motivation is no longer there? Or by next year will we have access to this model and anyone can solve any of these open conjectures with time + money?

> If you have suggestions on how to name our products better, I'm all ears. Our intention is to make things clear and simple, even if we miss the mark sometimes.

I'm not the one you were talking with but catching you is godsend since I just ran into a lot of confusion on the naming myself. I think some of it has to do with how they are labeled in the app.

I think simple numbers in naming is great, even 6.1 is fine bc I understand that if I want the latest model, I just need to look for the biggest number. Where I got confused is in the "work" tab, I saw 'Astra' is set as the default. I see the label for it is:

"Frontier intelligence for your most demanding tasks."

To me that reads "this is the 'best' model." Then I see Sol-6.1 which is labeled:

"For coding and every day work."

Then Terra-6.1 is:

"Terra 6.1 Codex Model" (tbh this one might be the most confusing, I'm aware of codex the product but Sol is the one labeled good at coding)

From my POV as a basic plan-based user wanting to do something like...

> design a robust event-driven system, here's the details [...]

I honestly have no idea which one I should use.

Would Astra-6 produce a better design than Sol-6.1? Is the '.1' a big step up from Sol-6? (I'm guessing no but I truly have no idea). I would assume the answer is Astra-6 would produce the best one, even though the labels don't imply it is necessarily geared towards coding?

But tbh the "default" seems to always work for me... and after reading your comment, typing this one out, being forced to think about it... it doesn't seem too bad given your challenges in communicating the purposes of each model and wide audience of consumers. I'm also sure anyone could find a million problems with decisions I've made in software I've built so I try to not be too harsh :)

I would trade (as if I have any say lol) every single breakthrough they have made in math/CS for _any_ good progress towards a universal cancer cure (very theoretical, I know).

I'm kinda hoping they are investing just as much into that type of research. Its their money but man... I'd say 999/1000 people are unaffected by all these breakthroughs. They probably have no idea tons of legendary math/CS conjectures were proven true/false. If a breakthrough in cancer research were to be made, it would very quickly start effecting everyone on earth.

Exactly my thoughts.

I find that unless the outcome I'm looking for from the model is almost binary and easily verifiable, it is basically faster to do the work myself.

Assumptions made by the models multiply and by the non-deterministic nature (dbf, similar to work by humans) I'll have something end up light years away from where it should be. During a normal workflow, I have to contend with every line I write forcing a very tight feedback loop... I suppose I could also sit there and spend 9 hours writing out a "perfect spec" but we've already tried that with waterfall development!

So, not sure if its the models, rather the class of problems I'm applying them to... but it is a bit ironic they are allegedly able to solve these conjectures but not stop to ask about assumptions.

I'm incredibly skeptical about everything these frontier labs put out. Results are results though.

However, could someone with a firmer grasp on the problems weigh in on how much are these recent results are function of cutting a virtually unlimited budget for some very smart people? I believe the LLMs certainly help iterate on ideas faster... but I am aware of very impressive work that goes on in quantitative finance. Stuff that would not really be published. That stuff is the result of paying smart people millions to produce results which produce $$$.

I have to wonder, would this have been solved if we simply gathered tons of smart people and paid them a ton of money to solve it? Or is it exclusively because they had access to LLMs?

Could they have achieved this result with previous versions of ChatGPT?

> So vote for a government that will do it.

There will almost never be a government that does this because the incentives are not there.

There are more incentives in prolonging a problem than there are in solving it.

> Or run for office yourself

Winning an election against career politicians is difficult and next to impossible. There is virtually no way to do this without having backing. As soon as you have backing you have new incentives. The purpose of a career politician and the machine behind them is to win elections. That may or may not involve solving problems that matter to constituents.

> I thought "the sentiment" was "tax the rich because they can afford it".

Not "because they can afford it" but "because it doesn't hurt." The "hurt" I'm referring to isn't the wallets of the rich, rather the existing revenue, the balance of things, society, etc.

The true sentiments will always depend on who/what is being taxed and who/what is advocating for the tax. Almost everyone I see supporting this particular tax is supporting it more as a means of "punishment" that can be levied against the rich.

> Taxing people with money makes the most sense.

Sure. Not sure how you would tax people without money... but it is always going to come down to "how much" and "what for", more than anything. Then you have to contend with downstream effects. People with money can and will move if they feel they are being taxed too much. This is no different than setting the price of a widget. You can always raise it but then you will have less buyers.

Probably. However, I've mostly been trying to watch older movies and I think paramount has some sort of monopoly on them.

I haven't seen the episode but I can imagine the critique is pretty valid. However, sometimes it goes too far in the opposite direction. Sometimes things _are_ actually worse now :)

There's a lot of nostalgic things that do in fact suck, I have no problem admitting that. Subjectively, I will die on the hill that movies overall are getting worse though. They are all starting to feel over-produced and sanitized. Objectively, the time between seasons of hit TV shows is increasing, we can measure that as a fact. Not rose-tinted glasses.

Honestly I think it's because everything sucks these days. I know there is a lot of survivorship bias going on but _something_ has changed. I have recently been on a 1980-2010's movie binge. It seemed like movies before were raw and real. Now everything feels like it's plastic and made in a lab, dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

Don't even get me started on shows. There are a ton of great ones but now they have 2-4, sometimes even 5 year gaps! The "increased" quality doesn't warrant it! I know people say "well now they're movie-grade" but I really could not care less. I don't need every episode of every show to be blockbuster quality. Just make it not suck! I would love to go to the movies and buy all the subscription services but it's simply not worth it! /rant

> Paramount Plus has nothing else.

This is funny, because every damn time I find something I want to watch its on paramount+.

There has to be a paradox/law named after this at this point. "The thing you're trying to watch will always be on the service you don't have."

> That's the sentiment behind every tax

Says who? Taxes don't exist to "punish" the rich or successful businesses. They exist to pay for things. If someone is mostly looking forward to the taking of money rather than the building of things with that money, they are being ridiculous.