Your names are not good because “Fast” is not a descriptor of model size and overlaps with fast/ultrafast inference. And “Plus” collides with the ChatGPT subscription plan. Point being, naming is hard.
That is the PE playbook - buy ok company, revamp things to make it more efficient and profitable. The main difference seems to be whether the owners sell the revamped company or not.
because every non-programmer hears “codex” and thinks that it’s for coding only - seems like a large hurdle to adoption. claude has been successful with cowork branding which makes sense.
TFA doesn’t actually state where the bit about shockwave therapy came from and it wasn’t the main point of the article. The concern was about being given useless therapies. The homeopathic analgesic is concerning, at least to me.
I.e. nothing this radiologist said was related to the LLM’s advice.
Agreed, 1000tok/s just fills up the context window (which is big by 2004 standards) super fast. But seems like 5.3-spark was just a taste of what’s to come.
A lot of words in this post and yet the author doesn’t ever define the word “consciousness”. The closest they get is mentioning their past work on information systems.
Folks, how can we debate whether LLMs are conscious if no two people can agree on what the word even means?
I agree. For many people, LLMs are the first time that computers do what they tell them to. Not what some big tech PM has decided is or isn’t possible.
At the same time, OP is in the right to reject contributions they don’t want. Nobody providing open-source software is under any obligations to take changes. Forking is still a viable option in 2026. And I don’t think we need an on-demand app store either because the trust issues will still exist for good reason. We can have highly produced software coexisting with LLM agents.
As usual, there’s no factual basis for the claims other than “I made it up” and author doesn’t seem to have technical experience with ML experience. A lot of weasel words doing all the heavy lifting here.
Because by definition, sapience is something only humans have. Ergo, parrots are not sapient.
More meta, all of the threads on this page are just people playing games with definitions. Eg, “qualia is something I have as a human but machines don’t have it. Therefore, LLMs do not have qualia.”
The set of tokens is learned, more or less. So I don’t get what point you’re trying to make here. There’s not a human manually deciding what tokens make up the token dictionary.
Photographers have already delegated their art to pushing buttons on a machine. They are the most receptive to AI tools, but not representative of artists in general.
> I supported Polymarket for years because I believed they represented crypto values.
>
> In fact, their platform is simply another bucketshop where if you bet too much, you're going to get cleaned.
Please, tell me more about these “crypto values”. Are they values like, “no regulations,” “rug pulls,” “funding ransomware”?