Yeah I've evidently been staying at the wrong hostels.

Yawn.

She goes to a different school

Same. I'm not releasing my Skynet T-800 model.

that allows us to compare their performance. Opus is considerably better.

In coding? Software architecture? Math? General knowledge?

The diversity of model use-cases is so broad that comments about "model x is better" without any context are largely useless

Ah shit, here we go again.

Or 3 or 4 lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbOckHiVXZc

I have a project that requires a model with at least a 20% chance of existential threat. Please release this Sama.

Because no car company would ever announce they had an unsafe car. They’d fix the problem and announce an awesome car.

Hype: you tell the world you alone have a very powerful and potentially dangerous product, and you're the only one who can be trusted keeping it safe.

I would consider it more "bizarre" to assume that Sam Altman was telling the truth about anything.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240112010809/https://www.sfchr...

There are cars that market based on only being track legal — and even more that market on requiring being tuned down for street safety.

Most sports cars do the second, exactly like OpenAI.

At the moment, their main "customer" is investors, not users. But even users want to use the most dangerous model, because dangerous is just another word for powerful.

Sports cars are advertised with how fast they can accelerate from time to time, or tesla's "ludicrous mode" - that is them advertising how dangerous it is.

Car companies sell mostly the same car every year. They don’t have billions (or trillions) of dollars of debt riding on the next model they release being substantially better and cheaper (closer to profitability) than the previous one.

These AI companies have been selling AGI as coming any day for a while now. If it doesn’t arrive soon, the safety angle may be the only spin that keeps the massive (and required) investments pouring in.

If instead the narrative became that LLM progress was slowing, we’d almost certainly be looking at the next global recession.

At this point, there is too much money in AI for the truth to have much of a chance.

Motorcycle manufacturers have been known to do so. Riding a motorcycle is thrilling in part because it is dangerous. The fact that powerful motorcycles are so difficult to control that most people have no business owning one is absolutely used to make them sound cool and desirable.

For instance, this article repeatedly mentions danger and the need for absolute focus and control:

https://www.triumphmotorcycles.co.uk/for-the-ride/news/inspi...

There is also a parallel (though not a very close one) to "pacing the frontier": there's a gentleman's agreement that limits the top speed of motorcycles to 300 kph (186 mph) because of concern that faster bikes would be unsafe enough to bring about a regulatory crackdown.

In the US they also get much bigger with less visibility.

Those are usually presented as an improvement in safety. And they are—for the people inside. Not so much for everyone else.

so when is the last time you saw an auto company decide not to release its new car on the grounds that some tragic engineering error was made and the cars were not safe to drive?

How about we actually try to make it sound cool? They're not releasing the new car because the horsepower was too much, they need more time to get it under control.

I could easily see a car company doing that.

Because they declare that their product is unsafe regularly, which gains massive exposure on every news outlet worldwide, then they release the model anyway with zero negative repercussions.

What's with so many people using bad analogies to try and explain simple topics?

Last time this happened: GPT - 4 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/17/openai-sa...

It's perfectly safe for YOU, the CUSTOMER.

It's just so powerful that, like, the WORLD can't handle it, man!

Why do you think they would announce this then?

They know what they're doing, even if you don't.

Or when they didn’t release thinking models until deepseek was first released

Isn’t this like the twentieth model they said this about?

Are they sure it isn’t because they are setting money on fire and have no business model?

My lobster is too buttery and delicious as well.

Earlier source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49885133

OpenAI will have to keep releasing unless it wants to bleed customers. If Anthropic leaps ahead by a couple of more models, even more OpenAI users will then switch over their $100+ subscription from OpenAI to Anthropic. As an example, see what happened to Google.

The safety concerns exist only because the underlying third-party servers are grossly insecure to begin with.

This is an inherent feature of "alignment." It's always been bullshit.

Just align it to do what the customer wants.

We got Mythos 1 week after the "too dangerous" announcement at the firm I was at during that time(larger bank).

So the danger level is proportionate to how little money you have

"Too dangerous to release" until an open-weight model replicates it two weeks later.

lol, nevermind then

Unrealistically low TC, instant immersion killer.

In other words: "We're compute constrained and we've already reached an asymptote."

It uses dangerously too few tokens to provide the same level of response as the previous version.

Muse is totally free. It doesn't throw up gauntlet messages to use it like GPT does even for paying members. Also with Muse's free version I can create iPhone apps unlike chatGPT Work which I pay $20 a month for.

Anyone else using Muse more and noticing similar stuff?

Did they fix it by not releasing a point release of an already existing model? No?

Did they just get a bunch of credulous "news" coverage out of it? Yes?

Will they just release this within the next weeks, at best? Yes?

Huh, funny that.

A.k.a.: Too expensive for inference at fp16 and too dumb after quantisation, so it wouldn’t look good to release a step backwards.

GPT 4.5 was scrapped for similar reasons.