Interesting 'RSI' data. However, it tells us nothing about the extent to which Claude is actually accelerating the pace of progress on AI. In the Mythos 5.1 system card Anthropic stated that AI tools progress had been essential to maintaining their current rate of progress.
The subject this post names, from the same vocabulary
the directory files beliefs under, and the words it uses that this site has seen
least often elsewhere. Posts are matched on those words alone —
nothing here is a summary of this one.
And the first step that we do on that is we show them it's tractable. When you're like, I'm three years behind, you're like, I'm out. It's too far. I'm a year behind. I'm too It's too much work. When you're like, you're 22 hours behind. It's 22 hours a day. Totally different message.
All this combined with the survey data on Americans’ stated reasons for opposing data centers makes me think that attitudes toward AI are probably a meaningful factor for a minority of people opposed to data centers, but I don’t think the backlash overall is driven by people’s thoughts on AI.
my claim is the proper way to evaluate the models now is you either have some kind of budget for the benchmark whether it's tokens or cost or time or whatever or you plot the performance as a function of the amount of test time compute that's going into the model
It doesn't guarantee that you're the good guys. Okay? Just writing it down doesn't do that much. But it does solve one very specific problem, which is if someone one day sues you saying you breached your fiduciary duty to investors, you could say, "Nope, investors agreed that this is our purpose to do this thing.
So if someone tells you, I'm serious about something, great. Now show me the apparatus. Show me the commitments you've made to make sure that happens every time. No exceptions. And if you don't have one, then they are lying to you no matter how good their intentions are.
figuring out a document that is actually like sort of all the things that are not platitudes whereas like all the things where someone else like some other company would plausibly take the other side of and but that's but those are the real choices, right? Like if no one would take the other side, it's a platitude.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.