This can’t be said enough. “Good for Agents” just means self-documenting, obvious ergonomics, save defaults, succinct (or controllable) output, programable interfaces, … all of which support human users too!
Seems like the only point of comparison against a competitive k/q runtime is an MBP run? suggestive to be sure, but would be good to see some other machines, esp. an x86.
Seems wild that the much-lauded "reference engine" leaves ~2x perf improvements on the table.
> Then we do one week of focused work. Before touching anything, we sit down with you and write out exactly what your app does, screen by screen, endpoint by endpoint
While the whole thing is clearly a bit in jest … one might suggest that if a complete spec takes a negligible fraction of a week, then perhaps neither AI nor consultants were required
Quite cool, but for a new runtime of an existing language it might make sense to compare to, y'know, the other[0] runtimes of that language? Even if one has to omit the best, closed ones for lack of access / permission to benchmark?
I do love GP's excitement about the energy potential of violent exothermic reaction upon contact with water ... and the proposal mere sentences later to ship industrial quantities thereof on creaky old ships
> We will deliver success through a flatter organization that is built around makers (individual contributors focused on building), player-coaches (leaders who remain deeply involved in the work while developing their teams), and directly responsible individuals (DRIs) who own key decisions and outcomes.
xbox-specific issues aside, this proposes an interesting view of the future of work.
How would possession of political material be evidence one way or the other? She can own, read, share, publish, disseminate all the revolutionary literature she wants
Go read the complaint[0]. The total nexus is (1) he spoke to a jailed suspect on the phone and (2) moved a box of zines from his parent's house to an apartment.
> The phrase "frontier model" is starting to mean two things. One is a checkpoint. The other is a system boundary.
LLM-isms aside, I don't think we want this to be the case? An LLM, for all its complexity, is something that can be reasoned about. It's picking the next token, until it hits an EOS. The semantics imposed on those tokens (reasoning ,tool call, etc.) are up to the user('s harness) to decide and act on. The more that's pushed behind the facade, the harder it is achieve sufficient understanding of the model's behavior s.t. one can compose it into larger abstractions. Perhaps the performance (and the adherence to an interface/contract) compensate? But swapping from Opus or 5.5 to this or Fugu seems like a much bigger change than swapping between different 'base' models.
other way around. it's trained to generate long CoT to reason through problems (and does it well!) but has ~no tool calling capability, and ~no ability to manage more than 1-2 messages.
That was my point. It's not even a pivot! They're still making consumer cards! They've even product-differentiated enough that the consumer cards are still on the shelves at close-to-MSRP, despite world-historic demand for adjacent parts of the lineup.
Being _mad_ at Nvidia in this setting is weirdly possessive - a business that was 90% gaming is now 10x larger and 9% gaming[1]. You haven't lost ground!