I think it's a lot harder to have this particular type of communications failure if you're writing on a chalkboard. Imagine trying to write out that whole slide, it would take forever. If you really did have to present that information on a chalkboard, you'd be significantly more likely to write something along the lines of:
"We checked the test data: possible to damage tiles significantly"
"Foam that hit wing was way bigger than the tests"
Obviously you can miscommunicate via any medium, but I think the author's point here (which I agree with) is some mediums lend themselves to specific types of miscommunication.
>The real tragedy is not that Hims exists, but that it works so perfectly. Every day, thousands of people choose their compounded weight-loss drugs over FDA-approved alternatives, their combination ED pills over established single-ingredient treatments, their algorithmic consultations over actual medical care. They make these choices not because the products are better, but because the entire experience has been optimized to feel more like shopping and less like confronting the mortality and vulnerability that define the human condition.
Strongly disagree with almost everything in this article, but specifically this. The reason people make these choices is not because of slick marketing working against them, it's because the existing process to get medical treatment is paternalistic, hard to navigate and often expensive.
If you want safe and really high quality medical care you should absolutely have a personal physician you have a personal relationship with, who understands your lifestyle, your risk factors for side effects, and your medical needs deeply. How many Americans have that? Maybe a few dozen? The market has responded to just how terrible the existing system is.
I misunderstood your comment then, my assertion is that models which have the same capabilities as current models will be cheaper in the future. I have no doubts that models with more capabilities will be more expensive.
Want to bet? I'll give you 5:1 odds that tokens from a model with some specific benchmark performance (we can sort out the specific benchmarks or basket of benchmarks if you want to bet) will be cheaper two years from now.
In my opinion most Anthropic models are the opposite, scoring well on benchmarks but not always way on top, but quietly excellent when you actually try to use them for stuff.
There was certainly some client side censorship, but also the model weights clearly had some of this baked in. You can try yourself by asking the same queries to r1 hosted by a US host like together.