> Claiming that there will be no more SDEs of any kind, worldwide, in max 2 years, is an extreme position.
Nobody said that. The claim is that within 24 months the models will have the capability required to replace all of us. I stand by that. How quickly that moves to everyone actually getting replaced is a social and economic question. There may very well be well be a long tail, I’m sure today you can find traditional weavers and barrel makers somewhere, they just happen to be economic novelties.
For the record, I’ll say that by 10 years out the profession is hollowed out enough for it to count as destroyed, and the process has already begun.
People just disagree, some people find that thought impossible unless their opponents are being paid, due to how obviously brilliant they are. And, that seems to be the minority position actually, mostly the discussion is the turkeys telling each other how Christmas is a myth.
Well, I’ll start by saying look at what you’ve just said: you’re in embedded devices, one of the more niche software roles. 90% of your code is written by AI. You’re saying that you need to correct it sometimes. You’ve watched as AI goes from chatbots that literally cannot hold a conversation with a human being to LLMs that can do your job with supervision in less than five years.
Maybe your point is just what the difference is to me. It’s competence. On hard problems Fable can just iterate by itself like nothing before. You give it a task, it can plan it, formulate and falsify hypotheses, and do more complex reasoning than anything before it. The main difference is simply that it gets more right and can go deeper on everything. Yes, you do still need to course correct it, but it’s just on the next level.
It’s like what everyone experienced when Opus 4.5 came out last year, and the penny finally dropped that AI coding had arrived. If these sorts of jumps happen even one or two more times then it’s all over. It might even be over now and it’s just too expensive to run, but that will change over time.
If you can, you should try it and see for yourself.
Just let people use their subscriptions for Fable. Permanently. All of it. Even if it runs out at 10% of the equivalent Opus use. Let people choose, there’s nothing to be gained by not allowing users to exhaust their subscriptions rapidly on this other than ill will.
Yes, this is exactly the implication. The decoupling of economies between those that have advanced AI, those who do not, and those who decide to ban AI outright or above a certain level of capacity.
It’s not a bad culture fit, how did the culture become toxic to begin with? We have toxic people who perpetuate and defend being toxic. They take over and push out anyone who doesn’t act like them. This is how communities become toxic, and it’s exactly what you are doing now.
Exactly. It actually is a cute art project and I quite like seeing their in game perceptron running, but if it were presented as a serious argument then it’s just an appeal to absurdity that rejects the notion of substrate independence. It’s trying to get the reader to reject the premise on the basis of a gut feeling of what a game is, the gut feeling of course hides that it’s just another way to do computation. But I guess that’s the point.
This was my first thought too. Thought, I will say that even though I think in speech for basically everything conceptual, and find it difficult to imagine even being able to not do this, I do often have these… ill defined ideas. Notions of something or other. I have a few words to describe them and they just sort of point in a direction rather than being fleshed out. It’s this sort of thing, like a thought-stub, that benefits the most from inspection and being forced into a better defined form. These are also often the more difficult things, and the reason they’re fuzzy is that it takes a lot of effort to make them sharp.
Haha, I found this genuinely funny. It’s called an internal monologue. Google tells me that it’s the majority position with 30 to 50 percent not having one.
Personally, I find it very difficult to understand how people could not think in words, like you were speaking to another person. Obviously you also have mental imagery and sound etc, so not everything is just words. Internal speech is one channel of thought, but for anything complex I would have thought it was mandatory.
I’m working on a novel (toy scale) kind of LM that is explicitly interpretable and programmable. In that it learns to predict words from text and you can directly see what it learned and teach it new things without retraining.
I was wondering when something like this would happen. I got my first and only two content violation warnings in Claude Code last week when asking it about something ML related. It was a real head scratcher because I couldn’t figure out what about the requests could have violated anything.
Might be worth going back and taking a harder look at what I was asking it about if it somehow triggered a “forbidden knowledge” alert. Or maybe it was just a random bug.
It’s an interesting insight into human nature. It seems like this is quite widespread, judging by this thread anyway. It’s a reminder that we run on social input and on environmental factors, and our traits are only our own little slants on this mass behaviour. Sort of like the “civilisation is only one meal away from collapse” thing.
Though obviously some people, let’s say, react worse than others.
I think it’s best to try to treat LLMs well even when frustrated, or stressed, or tired, the same way we would with people. Both because it might well matter to the LLM even if they are very different from us mechanically, but also because mistreating them trains us to act in negative ways.
We get so angry at LLMs because we can. Without any social or even emotional repercussions for expressing these emotions. If the models actually acted like people in response, we wouldn’t do it. Some of the people I work with daily make similar mistakes, I don’t find myself yelling at them.
I think this is simply part of the darker side of human nature, when we interact with entities who will take abuse, we tend to deal it out.
That don’t really work because this isn’t a nation state level enforced system, and realistically the only state that can force such a thing is the US. If they worked, we wouldn’t be here having this discussion.
I think this is a genuinely difficult problem that happens to look exactly like what you’d need for extended surveillance. When I think about it seriously, I end up coming up with the idea of a whitelist enforced on device for local accounts used by children.
This would probably block most of the internet, and allow access only to sites that are validated as being safe. This would put a lot of pressure on sites and service providers to ensure safety, such as children-only walled gardens within their broader services.
We already have piecemeal attempts at something like this through on device private age restriction software, but it’s not organised at the state level, and I think it’s not effective enough as a result.
If legally enforced it could be made into a pretty effective system that would give adults freedom and anonymity and provide safety for children, while pushing the costs of child safety onto the platforms, which is where it belongs. If you want to cater to children, prove that you can make it on to the whitelist. Otherwise that’s an audience you’re just not able to access.
It’s probably something like deepseek’s native sparse attention with content based granularity. They might not be publishing anything because it’s not such a strong value proposition and doing so would lead to commentary that would tank their investment opportunities.
Nobody said that. The claim is that within 24 months the models will have the capability required to replace all of us. I stand by that. How quickly that moves to everyone actually getting replaced is a social and economic question. There may very well be well be a long tail, I’m sure today you can find traditional weavers and barrel makers somewhere, they just happen to be economic novelties.
For the record, I’ll say that by 10 years out the profession is hollowed out enough for it to count as destroyed, and the process has already begun.