thorum

I regretfully suspect this actually is the future of UI. You just need smart local models running fast enough to keep the framerate high, but that’s inevitable in the long term, isn’t it?

That’s thinking short term. In the long run there are no economic incentives for humans.

Alternative proposal: Since no one reasonable actually wants a future where humans are irrelevant - including the people in power who generally like being relevant - we could remember that we’re thinking beings with agency and just decide not to use AI to replace ourselves.

We made a new tool. Using the tool for some things makes life better. Using the tool too much would make life worse. So let’s not do that!

Distillation only lets you keep pace with released models. By all indication, OpenAI/Anthropic’s unreleased internal models are so far ahead of Astra/Fable and every other lab that the chance of anyone else catching up is rapidly closing.

It’s not a religious belief. There is a mountain of scientific evidence supporting the idea that ultra processed foods are bad for you, including the study linked in this HN submission, for reasons linked to the biological effect of specific ingredients and processes.

Type any enzyme or emulsifier off an ingredient list into Google and you can easily find a study about its health impact.

That’s true except for this part, which is arguably a bigger deal for the Wikipedia ecosystem:

> Excessive data downloading: Agents we believe to be operated by OpenAI made millions of automated requests to our public APIs to access the knowledge on Wikimedia projects, crawled millions of pages (mainly from our projects Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons), and made hundreds of thousands of data queries to the Wikidata Query Service (WQDS). This traffic may have contributed to a partial outage on WQDS in May.

Even when agents are well-behaved and browsing Wikipedia for ethical reasons, the system wasn’t designed for this kind of load from bots. As OP says, we don’t need to accept this as the new normal.

Not sure what you mean. The top of the linked page is a video showing the product being used. Immediately below are the words “Compose images from scratch” and more examples, followed by “Text-to-image with strong prompt following and a native understanding of composition.” This is all within the first 100 words of content on the page.

In what way?

Sure, but the point is that the labs use more powerful internal models for research work, not public models. Public models tend to lag the internal frontier by a decent margin, and are constrained in other ways by monitoring. It’s just not a useful indicator.

> The researchers asked Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.8, running on open-source software called OpenClaw

Meanwhile, Navier–Stokes was solved by an internal model significantly more capable than Astra (and therefore more capable than Mythos/Fable).

I’m afraid this sort of experiment is cope. The labs clearly believe RSI is coming soon.

Why does it have to be about that? The author says they agree with the letter in the first paragraph.

FWIW, I flagged and downvoted both of your comments. The article is a very interesting overview of the space and recent developments, and having to scroll past multiple paragraphs about your low attention span and reading difficulties to get to some actual technical discussion was quite frustrating!

There’s nothing surprising or confusing here.

Outside of tech communities like HN, I see anti-AI rhetoric everywhere. A very large number of humans see AI as a purely evil and parasitic thing, no matter how it’s used. It’s an especially common view among artists and young people.

Whether or not you agree about AI, when you’re communicating to a wider audience, you have to read the room.