I asked him about sharks to be able to answer my kids question and it got triggered somehow. Then again when I asked it if my code had bugs or vulnerabilities before I commit.
At some point just kill the thing, it's not able to work properly as it is.
I really want a good Claude Design competitor in Codex, it's hard to use the others after getting used to it and yet I find anthropic's model to have a much worse understanding of what looks good or not than OpenAI or Google models.
The capabilities are useless if you don't expose them, and a cli or api doesn't. You'll mention their marketing page keeps talking about finance, sales, management etc...
I agree with you, but it's still a massive point though if they managed to go one step beyong in reasoning while keeping their efficiency, to take the most obvious one the token guzzling behavior of Fable is so big it makes as much headline as its heavy filtering and its actual great capacities when allowed to work.
If OpenAI is saying "oh by the way, upgrading to it won't make your usage massively explode", then I take that as a massive win. I'm on on Claude Max x20 and have accepted that Fable is not for me at its price point and token usage.
It is, but it's also using tokens at absurd rate, I asked it to review the planned architecture for a medium scale project and it used my 5 hours limit on one prompt just zaaaaap, not even the fable limit straight up the full 5 hour session no more Claude for the afternoon thank you for paying you Max x20 sub. Hell it didn't even bother to finish produce anything worthwhile.
And just to be clear, plan was already done, just had to review it, it got opus 4.8 Max and gpt 5.5 Extra High validated already and they didn't use much resource for it so I just don't get it. I guess they want to use it as a way to feed the extra credit money income.
I'm using a homemade ai consensus thing for planning and I wanted to add fable to it but forget it.
Or maybe I should use fable in low effort reasoning mode and it will be better than opus 4.8 at max ?
The cost is getting worse and worse for large general models, they're already way past that point in economics. Also, mMistral specialize in "on site" models, not remote. In terms of capex, renting factory/warehouse/whatever robots versus buying them and depreciate has already been played out, companies didn't want to replace human employees with robots employees.
"Go to the next room" and there is two doors, what do you do ?", "turn at the water dispenser" and there is a sink, that sort of things I assume is the biggest thing they're facing (beside the last 1% that's worth another 99%, as usual).
On their page where the result graph is, go to navigation error, that's the one that matters for your question, and you see their model is great at not navigating "wrong", so their failure rate was that it couldn't figure it out.
Not parent but I find them great for analysis amongst other, to have each agent handle only its parts and bring back any issue even if it's clarified in other parts because that specific agent doesn't know about that, and the orchestrator is then on charge of handling that and making sure things are clarified in each parts that needs it without depending on side effect or side knowledge.
Same with code really but on a lower level, I find X agents working in concert on small task each and the orchestrator making sure of the overall coherence is better, focused better is usually a lot better.
I just wish Claude Code would give us more control over what kind of agent (in many case it would be great to have say Opus handle a bunch of Haiku agents but unless I'm blind you can't be decide what agent is what and you get all counted as opus anyway).
Disagree. The market will not decide on that, at least for the nintendo product. Your or your kid want the switch and the pokemon and mario and others game, you're buying the switch, you don't switch to something else because the something else allows battery switch.
That's Nintendo's entire business model and the reason why they've been thriving since for ever in gaming and even the bad times where actually positive cash flow wise. They're not losing a single sale because the battery cannot be replaced, unless that sale was far from guaranteed to begin win.
You can find a source for it being used here [1] though parent is misrepresenting it either on purpose or by lacking understanding, I stand to my point above, the timeline is
1. the US used it, in venezuela then to prepare Iran
2. it became public through journals reporting it, but they didn't really hide from it afterwards and told explicitely what and who they used, naming anthropic
3. Diego (the CEO) answered by saying this violate terms and the US is not allowed and should stop that immediately, publicly
4. They have a talk, and while concessions are made it blocks not about war with ennemies but about surveillance at home, which Diego refuses to let go
5. Trump reacted by calling Anthropic a "Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about"
6. Peter Hegseth annonce they will stop using it but asked for a stop gap deal "Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition."
7. Open AI annonce a deal with the governement four and a half HOURS later, with totally cool safeguards "We think our agreement has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic's", journals note that "OpenAI's new Pentagon deal doesn't explicitly prohibit collecting Americans' publicly available information - a sticking point that rival Anthropic says is crucial for ensuring domestic mass surveillance doesn't take place"
8. In totally unrelated news, Anthropic new models get banned for exports in a move the US has never done before, no other company has their models banned
And now
9. Anthropic change the person talking with the gov to Brown
10. After a bit anthropic models start being unbanned
He's the one who led the choice to refuse working with the gov for surveillance or defense, and it led to that block right after.
I have no proof but I assume he believes at least some of what he's preaching (which doesn't mean he won't fold, at the end of the day it's an american company anyway).
Brown is probably more of a diplomat, "Sure, but not now" goes a lot further than "No, never", though it has the issue of kicking the can down the road.
Another added bonus is that they offer a clear "self hosted" if you want it, you can get the exact same product without sending your queries to them, it's costlier and you need the hardware sure, but between the economic espionnage aspect, the sovereignty aspect, the data safety aspect ... This has teeth in europe.
It's one of Microsoft under Ballmer biggest victory, and one that's proving to be harder than you would think for tech behemoth: when you have one product that's so overwhelmingly dominating and raking unlimited money, diverting into other product lines seems to be almost impossible, either they don't make enough money, or you don't have enough focus, or enough need for survival and such need for it to succeed.
Despite everything Google is still the Google Ads company, Meta is still the FB/Insta company, etc ... I would even add Intel in there, they're where they are in part because every new thing they made they killed off right away because it wasn't "a money printing large margin xeon with no competition".
Apple, Amazon and Microsoft are the big ones that got out of that trap. Though with Apple I would say it's more limited than it looks, it's just that their "product" is the ecosystem they build around, so while they have lots of lines they're all linked together and feed off each other with iPhone at the core.
On the other hand some would say, Ballmer decoupled Microsoft survival from Widnows survival so much that it leads to what's happening to windows those past 5-8 years, and that's not a plus for its users.
Same boat as you, and my answer is "... Except when I ask and overall or checkup task that is specifically heavy or overseeing in which case I use the maximum level" which lately meant ultracode.
I'm not going to play around with thinking level every request because the goal is to make me save time not spend it in a different setting menu.
The vaccine was mandatory, like in pretty much every army base of every half developed country, because not having it mandatory led to infection waves and in the army that's even worse than in genpop.
The reasons for not doing the vaccine anymore were, essentially, "the vaccine is more dangerous than the sickness" and "the vaccine is not necessary to avoid the sickness".
Both of those statement are, factually, scientifically, not true. That's reality. Which is what parent meant, no matter the deep conviction and the political innuendo, ultimately reality is you either do the vaccine and are safe for no risk or you don't and you get infection waves.
Ultimately I've never used Grok and don't want to support the company / CEO behind it, but even without that the 256k context window as given in this link means I won't look at it.
Model intelligence is great, but more often than not I found my issue is not that I would like 5/10% more intelligence, I'm already not even using the highest mode of thinking on most of my queries, and very important queries are better served by asking different model and ask another one to compare and help me decide.
My "big" issues are mostly centered about context loss and how they explode in flight when that happens sometimes without you or them noticing.
I don't know, depends on everyone's usage I guess, and 256k is not THAT shabby, but that's how I feel about it.