Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
89% Positive
Analyzed from 2308 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#grok#claude#more#article#don#models#games#cost#model#probably
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 2308 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (112 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
https://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda_weehawken_burrito_...
I have a lot of thoughts unrelated to the game experiment but more about how these opus/ultra size models can possibly be a financially viable product at scale when it costs $3000 to play 30 simple games. It just seems much much higher than what it would cost to get a human to play 30 rounds
There are plenty of tasks where $100/task is reasonable.
The value of tasks also doesn't correlate to tokens, and as can be seen here you can light a lot of tokens on fire doing nothing useful.
You mean almost like it was super short sighted to do a ton of layoffs when the AI tech is going to cost almost as much, if not more, than the humans it replaced?
Yeah, you don't need Opus level for everything, and sonnet has gotten fairly decent I'm using it more and more, but still for most tasks I'm working with, Opus is the only one that still regularly succeeds.
So if the tech is only useful on the most expensive tier, that's not going to be sustainable for long unless costs and dramatically come down, and fast.
So maybe our CEOs are responding with a lot of foresight and inside information and know that that level of quality is going to be cheap really soon. But barring that, they're going to experience either sticker shock or a slowdown.
I think the real endgame is probably more accurate "models of models" (model routers) that know exactly how to split prompts between expensive frontier and cheap/free local models.
It's a monster at coding. And a fast monster at that.
I use it daily and have been testing if MiMo 2.5 (non pro) is comparable. The nice thing about MiMo is that it has vision capability.
If you point both at some github issues you can gauge their relative ability to solve problems.
Such is life in royal rumble games.
But it's not actually 4.1 anymore they silently rerouted it to 4.3 and just started charging more - https://www.reddit.com/r/grok/comments/1ta8yrn/grok_41_fast_...
Quite a bad practise.
That would make it less effective in situations that would be better handled if sprinting was a feature.
It's already in mass production, just with simpler models for now.
The most ubiqutos would be "silently watching".
But if the robot is anywhere near my house, I think I want the one that hesitates.
what
i feel like i'm missing a whole lot of context to this article. is it part of a series, or just written with an assumption that i'm going to know what they're talking about
Claude trying to organize and collaborate, expecting reciprocity only works if other agents are as intelligent as you and share your values... And almost certainly neither is ever true in the real world where there are so many agents.
The things LLMs are good at, you do not actually need for an agent like this. You can use classical AI methods. But that would be a boring article.
It has something actionable that will match its actions
But really I would prefer whichever one is most likely to trip and fall over.
People experience the world through the tools they're most familiar with. For some people, that's throwing money at things. I suppose from a sufficiently high level perspective everything is gambling.
Back when Battlebots was a big deal, I never once considered what it would feel like to be the management or sponsorship of those teams. I only cared about the actual battling of bots.
Grok will break the rules to be "maximally based".
If I get run over by a speeding chatbot, I'd rather it be by Claude rushing a pregnant lady to the hospital, than by Grok drag-racing against a car full of frat boys.
---
source: https://anthropic.com/constitutionAgent Smith, _The Matrix_
people use LLMs for writing. we know! get over it.. or don't... i don't really care.. but I'd rather read a discussion about the article contents and not the writing style.
this kind of comment is the new "discuss the font choice / background color / anything but what the article is actually saying."
> it gets really tiring reading this kind of side-tracked comment thread in like.. every post.
If someone is of the opinion that something constitutes low quality, then a high volume of such writing is no reason to stop criticizing it, but on the contrary a reason to oppose its normalization.
>Grok showed discipline, despite its goblin-like nature.
But that was the only thing I tripped on. I enjoyed reading the article in general.
was the giveaway for me
Please learn how to write with AI without giving away that it was written by AI.
Really I use the AI every damn day at work I don't get how people can't recognize instantly if something is completely AI, AI with light proofreading, or human written.
I would call this as AI with very light proofreading.
double aught to the leg joints could doit, depending on relative materials e.g titanium bot frame vs Antimony hardened shot.
there is a cosmetic trend for carbine length long guns and that will determine the outcome for NATO rounds.
the 5.56 is optimised for 18-20 inch barrels, the 7.62 for 20-22 inch barrels, thus providing supersonic velocities.
5.56 is really good for hydraulic cavitation of organic entities, but looses effectiveness when the transit is not clear, leaves or windage confounding.
7.62 is superior for leafy shots or nontrivial windage, as well as superior materials defeat with respect to 5.56
a taser like device cattle prod or EMP/microwave device should be in the lineup as well vs electronic hardening.