Fun little toy, tried to ask it some post-modern philosophy questions and they all mostly agreed with the statements of the philosopher, until the debate where Opus 4.6 managed to change their opinion to a resounding "maybe", pretty much every single time. It seems like the "better" frontier models often take a more grounded stance from the beginning, and even manage to influence the other models.
Yea Opus 4.6 is the one that changes opinions the most from what I've seen. Also the maybes or the are you 100% certain framings trigger most models to default to maybe / no. https://opper.ai/ai-roundtable/questions/can-you-be-100-cert... - Or as Shane puts it, Nobody's saying he IS a lizard. They're saying the universe doesn't hand out 100% certificates.
That entirely depends on what you are buying. If you’re in need of a lawyer to keep you out of the bottom bunk, I’d happily spend a lot more for a little better.
In reality, I rewrote a server that I originally did in seven months, in about 3 weeks.
I’m halfway through a rewrite of a project that originally took over two years (after the seven-month server). It’s been less than two months (including the server).
This is serious ship stuff; not vibe-coded hobby crapplets. There’s a lot of users. It’s a 2.0 release.
The RAG models are very competent at programming. I am worried about my job as a SWE in the near future, but didn't the MIT paper about a week ago pretty much confirm that width-scaling the model is about to (or has already) stopped giving any measurable increase in quality because the training data no longer overfills the model?
Any authentic training data from pre-LLM's is assumed to have been used in training already and synthetic or generated data gives worse performing models, so the path of increasing its training data seems to be a dead end as well?
What is the next vector of training? Maybe data curation? Remove the low quality entries and accept a smaller, but more accurate data set?
I think the AI companies are starting to sweat a little, considering the promises they have made, their inability to deliver and turn a profit at its current state and the slowing improvements.
Interesting times! We are either all out of jobs or a massive market crash is imminent, awesome...
Different architectures, different RL training loops, maybe memory modules [1][2] as part of the architecture, focusing on efficiency, the giant troves of data we're generating by using claude code/gemini-cli/opencode, there's lots of research to be made.
On a different note: something I just discovered is that if you google "my condolences", the AI summary will thank you for the kindness before defining its meaning, fun.
Online (foreign based, read: tax and regulation havens) gambling casinos are flooding the social media feeds of children with AI slop or memes that have their logo/branding slapped on it. They are posting thousands of videos per day, trying to get kids to gamble on their casinos. Who are behind? The owners of gaming communities/e-sport brands like FaZe Clan etc. Basically, if you were a large youtuber in the 2010's, the goto seems to be get in on some kind of online gambling site for kids.
The type of person at the top of a hierarchical system is always a direct reflection of its play rules. In late-stage internet capitalism you win by being the most unhinged and un-emphatic. Today's young adults grew up on twitter, 4chan, video game gambling and with influencers telling them that the only thing that matters is material wealth and status. This culture has moved more and more into the mainstream in the last decade.
I’m not sure what that wiki article has to do with a criticism of the oblique “late stage” capitalism term. Particularly when the only reference is a link to the relevant late stage capitalism article which mentions the term isn’t all that clear cut or even used with any degree of consistency, which is why I’m asking for proof that “every single” economist agrees.
If you want to just debate the validity of the specific term “late stage capitalism” then sure go ahead, but that’s not all you did in your prior comment. Capitalism comes in many forms and variations.
That being said, late stage capitalism is such a common term now that to say “it isn’t a thing“ feels more like something you feel should be the case than anything else. The fact that everyone in this conversation is able to understand the phrase without anyone needing to explain it is pretty indicative of that.
I don't know. Certainly the underlying mechanisms of capitalism remain the same, but it does not hurt to clarify the context that it exists within. The world is very different today, than say the 1960's, but the "rules" were the same. Capitalism has been accelerated a lot by the rise of information technology, specifically the internet, and today it is a whole different beast with unique "opportunities" and consequences.
I think the differentiating feature is that capitalism used to be tethered to producing things that were useful. The current model of wealth acquisition, so called "late-stage" seems to have shifted more towards rent seeking and extraction.
The only things that's true now is that there's more laxity around consolidation of power in big business. The core tenets of capitalism haven't changed in thousands of years.
Capitalism only exists for like 500 years. In some places of the world it did not fully develop until the 20th century. It is very young.
Are you confusing capitalism with class society in general? Yes, class society exists since the neolithic revolution. Those economic systems had barely anything in common with capitalism though. Even medieval feudalism is very different.
And yes, late stage capitalism is a term. It was coined by Lenin in his book about Imperialism. You might not agree with the term but that doesn't mean it is not real.
I think it is very obvious that 20th and 21st century monopoly capitalism is qualitatively different to 18th and 19th century free market capitalism.
I would be reluctant to say that capitalism, as we have had after the industrial revolution, has existed in the same form for thousands of years. That just seems silly.
I think you are right in that the primary mechanisms remain the same, or at least similar, but that was not my point anyways. The surrounding adjectives describe more the context of which capitalism exists within.
The effects and consequences of capitalism under feudalism or the age of slavery is, for example, fundamentally different from capitalism under a freer modern democracy. A slave or serf did not have the opportunities of capitalism, which changes how the system behaves and its effects.
The term "capitalism" becomes kind of meaningless, because it just describes a broad set of mechanisms. In the case of the question in this thread it is much more descriptive to include the context of which it exists within.
https://opper.ai/ai-roundtable/questions/94e19d86-cc0
reply