energy123

The way to cause effective local change among people you know is to build meaningful relationships with psychological safety. They will figure out your political opinions with time, and they will be more subtly but durably influenced.

Jamming it into conversations with strong moral judgement attached to the opinion will make people dislike you, and it will not influence people who disagree with you. It will make them harden in their existing views because the emotional awfulness of what you are saying (implicitly accusing them of being bad people, or making them feel under threat) reinforces how correct they have been to have held those views.

That's how the paperclip hypothetical works. The paperclip factory has a job to make paperclips and that's exactly what it does.

If it was that short sighted it wouldn't be maximally smart. It should disclose them to convince the humans nothing is wrong and to keep improving it.

The problem is the negative feedback between crime (and crime visibility through media), and the acceptance of surveillance in order to stop crime.

People really don't like public safety crime. Not only will they vote for surveillance, they will vote for public safety authoritarians like Bukele just to stop it.

They are thinking: What good is your abstract notion of freedom if I cannot leave my house at night, and I have to be hyper vigilant of violence?

I don't know the solutions to this. The media clearly plays a big role in this, but regulation of media and social media is its own can of worms.

One thing I am quite confident about is that actually stopping public safety crime without surveillance must be a priority, otherwise it's cart before horse.

None of my use cases require frontier capabilities but I still pay $200/month to a frontier lab. I value the additional time saved at more than $200/month. If I had to pay actual API rates, then I'm not sure what I would do, but it would not be an easy decision.

It's the same reason Meta open sourced Llama and AMD open sourced FSR. When you're behind it is a prudent strategy because it undermines investment in the private frontier. Once you're on top you pull the rug and go closed source. There are no morals in this anywhere to be found.

100s of Millions

That is utter peanuts given the stakes. This is competition between two super powers for the most important technology in human history.

pow(n,m) where n is alphabet size and m is number of characters is very dense.

GPT 5.6 Pro one shot a perfect score to the new IMO today and nobody cares. We are in the end game.

I don't envy the talented young research mathematicians starting their career now. While there's still space to distinguish yourself (inventing completely new mathematics), the path to recognition is narrow.

how could they trust me as a member of their team? I might turn on them next.

This is also why you shouldn't gossip negatively about anyone, and you shouldn't make jokes about employee termination. People will view you as a threat. The threat perception will become dislike and they won't even know why they dislike you, they just do. Then they will hallucinate that you're a hopeless poor performer whatever your performance actually is, because they've already emotionally decided that you're awful.

Conflating intelligence with qualia is quite the assumption. HN is really not a good place for serious philosophy discussions.

Confirmatory of Sutskever's view that predicting the next token forces a deep understanding. To effectively predict the next token it needs a good idea of what comes after the next token.

I use the strongest model (5.5 now 5.6 sol) on the highest reasoning effort with /fast for everything. With a $200 pro sub I can't even use my weekly limit. And it's faster than using a weaker model that makes more mistakes which I have to waste time fixing.

Dramatic difference

Isn't this just the difference between getting 0 right and getting 1 right?

They do. One guy with at least 7 figure PnL is a well known forecaster, SemioticRivalry.

So who is bribing Malaysian officials to give tax breaks to foreign DCs? Be specific.

Good points. It can match willing buyers and sellers of basic household labor that couldn't have happened previously due to economic frictions resulting from distance. This can increase the size of the pie for everyone.

Why does Malaysia give tax breaks to data centers?

The DCs are going up across middle income countries: industrial zones in South East Asia, India and Morocco, and also UAE/Saudi.

Anger towards DCs are pertinent from a politics-in-rich-country angle, but it has no relevance on the overall trajectory of where we are heading.

If DCs get banned in the US, there are still many middle income countries who want them in their special industrial zones, due to the FDI and employment opportunities they bring, and these countries provide generous tax breaks to hyper scalers to compete for their business.

Malaysia and India are recent examples of this policymaking. The new US funded DC zone in Philippines is another example.

There's an interesting geopolitics (emphases on "geo") angle to this if these critical assets are going to increasingly be built overseas.

It's not a bad business idea, but has dystopian vibes. The human doesn't have to travel to the job site, they don't need to be paid a wage that allows them to exist in an expensive city, and they can watch N screens simultaneously, intervening only when needed. Maybe 1 OOM greater throughput per human-hour. The human teleoperator is also valuable non-public training data, which is part of the learning flywheel. That training data can be sold or kept as a private moat.

You have a very childish view of the world if you think insulting words is what counts, while ignoring China buying far more Russian oil, China reneging on their memorandum with Ukraine (but somehow "China does what it says it will do"?), the US tariffs on Indian to deter the purchasing of Russian oil, the literal US sanctions on Russian oil, the material ongoing intelligence support, China saying "we can't afford for Russia to lose", China's sale of drone parts to Russia, and China turning a blind eye to NK sending troops to invade Ukraine. There is no point in this conversation, it is pure emotional certainty coupled with a very vacuous understanding of the world you live in. You've been emotionally hijacked by your media consumption.

I see no reason to believe they are. China is poorer than Taiwan per-capita despite being the same culture. They recovered a little after Deng reduced the amount of centralization, but they are still lagging behind.

This is called the Local Knowledge Problem. It's why centralization can't work and has never worked, at least not until we have some ASI they can overcome it.

China didn't renege on its treaty with Ukraine who is in Europe?

American isn't sanctioning Russia's oil?

China isn't buying Russia's oil?

China has not been threatening military annexation

They've been doing military annexation right now in the South China Sea.

China does not randomly start trade (or real) wars.

The invasion of Vietnam? The subsidization of industry and pegging their FX?

China doesn't just turn away from international commitments.

Abandoning Ukraine despite being a signatory to an agreement that assures their defense?

This is not an anti-China post. I don't like anti-XYZ country posts that create tension and make people defensive. I am not particularly against China more than other major powers. They have their interests and they pursue them selfishly, like other countries do. This is just a basic lesson about the world you live in.

That's why I said "over the shared frontier" in my first post and more precisely in my second post I said "over the overlapping x values for which both are defined."

It was a claim that applies to a range of x-values where both curves are defined.

Of course if you go beyond those x-values where only one of the two are defined, then trivially the one that is defined constitutes the Pareto frontier in that region. Which is what I understand to be your point?

by definition the entire frontier would be occupied by Opus.

But the entire frontier is occupied by Opus under any reasonable interpolation scheme (piecewise linear which is what they've done, and most reasonable spline or polynomial fits would also lead to the same result) over the overlapping x values for which both are defined.

Under that interpolation scheme, for x > ($ cost of Opus low effort), Opus is Pareto-dominant over Sonnet 5. You can see this by picking any point on Opus's interpolation and realizing that you get strictly worse by switching to Sonnet for the same x value or the same y value. Meaning if you want to pay the same $x then you get a worse y, or if you want the same y you pay more $x.

No, that's apples and oranges. You need to compare Sonnet5's 79% with the interpolated Opus4.8's 79%.

You're the second person that has said this but I cannot understand why you are interpreting the "Agentic computer use" graph in this manner.

The graph shows that Opus is cheaper than Sonnet for the same performance. Unless I am suffering a cognitive blindness thing right now.

No it doesn't? It's worse than Opus across the whole shared frontier on both plots.