I'm thankful I tested Fable via my subscription before the cutoff. To me, it seemed like at least part of the improvements were in how it broke up work for a "one-shot" style prompt, but I was very impressed at how quickly and effectively it produced better results than Opus 4.8 at a handful of real-world use cases I threw at it from my own work.
Another interesting finding which I've heard others corroborate is that even though the per-token cost was higher, it seemed to orchestrate the work efficiently and burn through fewer tokens, roughly evening out to approximately the same per-prompt token usage as Opus.
Computers feel like a pretty good analogy for how AI will affect the workforce.
I suspect productivity will massively increase, the complexity and cognitive load of our work will similarly multiply, and yet we'll still being doing the now-more-complex work in some capacity for a similar number of hours.
I've been thinking for some time that it wouldn't be too hard to create a third-party browser extension to crowdsource detection of channels that use primarily AI-generated content (for example, the AI slop music channels that put out multiple hour+ long genre or cover "playlists") and hide them from suggestions or home feeds.
My guess is that Google sees some kind of trend in a contingent of users preferring non-AI content and that surfacing AI content misleadingly has a negative effect on retention / watch time, and/or they're trying to get ahead of long-standing creators taking issue with the platform surfacing AI content disproportionately on account of it being excessively easier to upload in large quantities.
Like a lot of things in tech and pop science, "AI psychosis" had a narrow(-er) definition [1] (psychotic-like symptoms, i.e. believing the AI is in love with you, or being fueled by the AI into some strong delusions or belief in a "mission" so important your faith in it becomes quasi-religious/"destiny"), which aligned loosely with actual psychiatric symptoms.
The much broader version of people getting a bit too full of themselves or trusting an LLM's sycophantic nature as validation that they are right or uniquely smart with their ideas seems to be the version I'm seeing more of in tech news sites and places like HN
I loved my TI-84+ SE and wish I still had it (had all sorts of custom programs on it but it got lost or stolen before I finished high school).
That said, I find it really hard to believe that they can't provide better specs and feature set for the cost. User-available memory of 3.5MB is incredibly low, especially with Python support. These could be really cool handheld computers if TI put more effort into their devices that already have a massive install base.
Currently, most of their popularity in my experience is "lock in" effect from teachers who are familiar with TI calculators and lab / curriculum materials that are specifically built around teaching through TI calculators. At this rate they're charging a lot and resting on their near monopoly status in education, which I'm sure is very profitable for TI.
There used to be a great app called WabbitEmu that emulated these devices on Android. I think they got a cease and desist but it was pretty neat to have back in the day
The cost of these devices isn't the computation, and if anything more connectivity would probably make these more expensive and harder to use (many "smart" devices in classrooms have networking issues and if even one of them can't connect, it hurts the ability to run a lesson). I think standalone computation abilities are pretty important, and connectivity can be a downside for preventing cheating in standardized exams etc.
I wish the audio quality of youtube videos matched other streaming services. Bandwidth-wise it's pretty minimal, but the audio quality isn't quite as good as competitors like Spotify (and the longer they take to upgrade audio bitrate, the longer the problem persists and uploaded content has lower audio fidelity)
> By this logic, the Nazis were the good guys in WWII, and Israel would be the good guys if they'd just turn off all their pesky air defenses.
Can you elaborate on this? I thought that the Nazis were pretty obviously the "bad guys" due to committing genocide and mass casualties (combatant and civilian) while trying to expand their borders.
> It doesn't make any sense to try to judge morality based on casualty ratios.
Really, even the ratio of civilian casualties, or ratio of civilian casualties to combatant casualties? Those seem pretty relevant to morality in my book, but I might be misunderstanding.
I think we're mostly in agreement? I agree civilian casualty ratios can be meaningful signals about morality, provided that we account for context (e.g. whether civilians are trapped in a warzone or able to evacuate) and are careful to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.
But the parent wasn't really comparing these ratios; it was closer to a "total deaths on either side" sort of comparison. Usually the implied message is that in a conflict between two sides, the side that killed more must be less moral. That dubious logic would suggest e.g.
- The Nazis were morally superior to Western Allies, since the Western Allies killed more Germans than the reverse.
- The Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War, since Iraq suffered several orders of magnitude more casualties.
- Israel is bad partly because it goes to extreme lengths to protect its people (Iron Dome, bomb shelters everywhere, etc.). Letting more of its people get killed would "even out the scales" and suddenly make Israel's military operations more moral.
>>Usually the implied message is that in a conflict between two sides, the side that killed more must be less moral.
And you decided that this is an argument I'm making and decided to argue against that, instead of what I'm actually saying - which sure, would lead to the nonsensical logical conclusions that you wrote.
What makes Israel a state worthy of condemnation is the fact that they target civilians on purpose. That they shoot at medics, deny food supplies, shoot rockets at refugee camps, hospitals, schools, they shoot at little kids playing around, they torture their prisoners, they use AI to guess which person needs to be eliminated and they blow them up with their families to maximise casualties - and all of the above happens without any oversight or consequence for any people involved. The 20k children dead is a consequence of all of these decisions, the number itself isn't what makes Israel bad - it's how they got to it, through a culmination of decades of decisions on how they see Palestinians - as subhuman scum needs to die. There is no effort to protect civilian life, and IDF saying otherwise is just lying.
But I feel like you're keen to say that Israel is "defending" itself and Gaza is a narrow urban zone, so of course it can't be done any other way.
Let me maybe ask you this, just to satisfy my own curiosity more than anything - if Israel decided to kill everyone in Gaza, based on the assumption that since Hamas doesn't wear uniforms anyone can be a militant so this is justified, would you just go "yeah that's fair"? Or would you just make some argument about how no army in the world would do better.
> And you decided that this is an argument I'm making and decided to argue against that
Then what was the point of your numeric comparison? If you agree it's a very poor signal about morality, why bring it up?
> What makes Israel a state worthy of condemnation [...]
It seems like you're just listing every random accusation you've heard that paints Israel in a bad light. Should we try this game with another country, like say Palestine?
> the assumption that since Hamas doesn't wear uniforms anyone can be a militant so this is justified
>>It seems like you're just listing every random accusation you've heard that paints Israel in a bad light
I really don't understand your train of thought. Are you saying these things didn't happen? Or they did happen but Palestine also is doing despicable things so they don't matter? Or they do matter but they aren't worth being upset about? Or it's worth being upset about them, but they shouldn't be discussed?
>>No I certainly don't think that.
Well what did you bring it up as the first point then? I said - hey I'm bothered by the fact that Israel killed 20k children in this conflict, and then you said hey I wish someone was talking more about the fact that hamas doesn't wear uniforms when fighting. Like, what is the conclusion here? That Israel is killing civilians because anyone can be a militant(since hamas militants don't wear uniforms), or.......what is the alternative?
>> If you agree it's a very poor signal about morality, why bring it up?
I don't agree with that - I just said it's a consequence of every other choice that Israel made up to this point.
I just don't see the point of engaging with a big laundry list of random accusations against Israel. Some are likely true. Urban wars aren't rainbows and butterflies, and no military is perfect. Ukraine has had a bunch of incidents with soldiers abusing and even executing POWs, should we sanction them too? US recently obliterated a girls' school, should we sanction ourselves for our mistake?
> what is the conclusion here?
Maybe something like "Israel's neighbors should probably stop attacking it", "Hamas should put on uniforms", or "countries that supposedly care about Gazans' well-being should accept war refugees"?
If your takeaway is that it's all Israel's fault, but you can't name any other military that does a better job of dealing with terrorists who embed themselves among civilians, that seems like the wrong takeaway.
The trust component is so critical here. When I get halfway through reading a design doc and hit a part that's obviously slop, it really hurts my confidence in the project and in any faith in the developer having done their due diligence.
Certain communications, especially technical writing, are "expensive" both in terms of the effort of the author(s), and in terms of the person-hours of people reading them to gain understanding. Like mission-critical code, they should be written and reviewed with care, and at the very least heavily edited from an automated LLM output to be unrecognizable as such.
I personally don't use LLMs at all in my designs and I remain skeptical of the value proposition for those who do.
> This was not opportunistic. It was precision. The malicious dependency was staged 18 hours in advance.
Another obvious ChatGPT-ism. The fact that people are using AI to write these security posts doesn't surprise me, but the fact they use it to write a verbose article with spicy little snippets that LLMs seem to prefer does make it really hard to appreciate anything other than the simple facts in the article.
Another interesting finding which I've heard others corroborate is that even though the per-token cost was higher, it seemed to orchestrate the work efficiently and burn through fewer tokens, roughly evening out to approximately the same per-prompt token usage as Opus.
reply