The leakage problem is so pervasive. None of the frontier models seem to have any idea how to actually hold out rows. God help you if you decide to change the data mix.
I was working on creating a next-n-actions predictor for one of our use cases and not paying much attention for a PoC. I was fairly happy with the progress for a few days, before actually reading the eval code and seeing that we leaked the final state in every eval.
It's nice to let claude run loose on porting from framework to framework (port my code from TRL to NemoRL to Tinker to VeRL) but looking at what it does in the intermediate steps makes me want to claw my eyes out. And getting it to adhere to our domain model (e.g. we have an SFTConfig and a .to_trl(), or a Row and a .to_harmony()) is impossible.
Building an ontology of how people think of and organize information, processes, and actions is not solved via markdown. It’s not well solved intra company much less inter. The systems that do solve some of this are optimizing for unstructured retrieval and will continue to.
Imposing a structure on this unstructured discovery feels like it ignores all progress in IR, and imposes a farcical structure that doesn’t have a tangible benefit.
I strongly prefer codex. Claude is annoying. Codex provides descriptions where I want them and more touchpoints to audit the quality of work. Claude code on experimental seems to not even show diffs when asked anymore, and it's much less clear what is being shipped.
But how many plugins are people actually using? I can think of one MCP server I find valuable (context7) and one plugin that i've installed, but continuously think about uninstalling (obra/superpowers).
But why does your agent control doneness? It seems to me the most odd part to delegate. All LLMs are terrible at it. Most LLM tasks can be expressed as a DAG or DAG of DAGs. Why delegate that to a random point in context instead of enforcing the flow?
Most LLM tasks can be expressed as a DAG, but the odds of it succeeding go way, way up if you drop the acyclic requirement (eg a “run tests, if they fail, fix it and loop back to running the tests” stage).
And it gets delegated to context because it’s either to have another session and tell it to double check and critique the first LLM than it is to write a deterministic test for every prompt. Like if I want a new form that sends a REST request on submit, I can have two LLMs duking it out in 5 minutes. If I have to write Selenium tests then I might as well just write the feature. Or I can have an LLM write the tests, but that’s more or less the same as letting a second LLM judge the first.
i think the reason for your deluge of downvotes is that a society the promotes more things becoming affordable is one that prioritizes stability. universal access to housing, healthcare, and education that people want is only possible in a society that is immensely productive.
We can have a philosophical debate about work, the history of work and its relationship to human psychology in the 21st century but the bottom line is that there are 8+ billion people on the planet and, of those who are "working age", the vast majority of people, lacking meaningful capital, can only secure income by selling their time and labor.
There's absolutely no evidence that if we come up with a way to "reallocate human time" and change the structure of our civilization (using AI of course) tomorrow, the masses would benefit. There's plenty of evidence that the people who control AI or have the capital to employ it will use it to accumulate as much power and wealth for themselves as they can.
You’re just repeating old outdated bits of propaganda.
Also, nice that you’re estimating that there’s been no decline in population size over the past 3 years. At least you slipped a bit of truth out in an attempt to demonize them.
> the vast majority of people, lacking meaningful capital, can only secure income by selling their time and labor
It's just time and it's the only things humans value. The only way to provide value for another person is to use your time to do something faster than they could do it with their time. That's it. There is no other way to secure income outside of inheritance or charity which is just receiving something of value without giving something of value. There's a reason why most of the income goes to older people, because the younger people haven't accumulated that much time to exchange for money. The nice thing about time is that everyone earns it at the same rate, 1 second per second.
Capital can be a lot of things, not just machines and property. Any experience you have is capital, any training is capital, any education is capital. Capital is anything makes accomplishing things take less time.
The difference between socialism and capitalism is the idea that one person's time can have different value. That's really it.
Reallocating human time is also going to cause problems.
But it’s a great short term business opportunity for AI vendors and it was Anthropic who went all in on being knowledge worker outsourcing in a big way first whilst OpenAI thought they’d replace Google in search.
I think Anthropic had the better business strategy.
For the Capitalist crowd, YES it is the biggest cost. The next is energy. Imagine a world where your research and development is all AI and the production is all automated by robots. Instant product to sell to the masses who has no money because no one is working.
In the future a few thousand billionaire geniuses will own a world of unimaginable luxury and near-infinite longevity. They will make the decisions, AI will execute them, and robots will do the physical work.
Everyone else will be reduced to compost.
It's the perfect plan. The final definitive justification for capitalism.
The masses are unnecessary. The masses will be optimised.
Why do billionaires keep working, keep amassing more money, donate to politicians, buy media companies?
They want influence and power. Being at the top of a hierarchy of millions, billions of people.
If there are no massess the 1000th billionaire will be a the bottom of the hierarchy instead of near the top. They don't want that. The masses are needed to give them the sense of power.
What these people want is power and control. Eliminating the masses goes against that.
I don’t think that’s it. I think the only thing that motivates billionaire is just to have more than the next guy.
The only thing that motivates Bezos is that Elon Musk’s has more and conversely Elon Musk would have a existential crisis if he was no longer number one
I feel like one mental model here is that the attention is limited and under capitalism capital aggregates in the hands of few. Their attention is limited to things that immediately better their position, the most capital-efficient thing to do is to gather more capital.
Cheaper prices, affordable housing, affordable healthcare are less capital-efficient. If you're Walmart, sure, you would like to lower prices as much as possible. But your leverage really isn't as big as finance or tech. If you're a politician, you might also pursue those goals, but your attention and leverage really isn't as focused as that of the money machine.
this is true of most actual clouds/neoclouds. oversubscription and intelligent placement of workloads is already something they do. I’ve known a few people at AWS who have offset unbelievable amounts of cost by optimizing placement.
I am pretty excited. The factuality of important events has been distorted for most of history. Moving to a low information trust society is something that I think will be positive.
I don’t see it leading anywhere but a flat earth. When no one can be trusted whoever can tell you want to hear will be who people listen to and snake oil salesmen will reign supreme. Even if he was CIA, Cronkite’s world was closer to the truth than Alex Jones’.
One of my professors at Uni a year ago was arguing that due to genAI we would have a shift of trust into established institutions/people, so government (I'm not American so I don't know if this is possible after many recent scandals for example), Universities, people with authority/knowledge, close family members that are trust worthy, knowledgeable and/or work in before mentioned institutions. So basically we would revert to pre-web times where we had to trust some entities whenever we liked it or not.
I personally worry that what that would mean is we are left with little to no institutions to trust, besides Universities and family members, I don't think I would be able to trust governments and corporations, but I guess before internet people also weren't blindly trusting those.
I doubt the new trust bearers will be anything like governments and universities because trust in them has been severely eroded. Sadly, they will be select Youtubers and Internet influencers.
I've lived in a low information trust society and this was not the outcome at all. People trusted their local cliques much more, and there were local minima (e.g. a mainstreamish political party with leaders that are actively and dangerously anti semitic), but in general people were way more willing to engage with ideas.
One implication was people were more social and talked about ideas more. Thought had not been outsourced to arbiters in the way that it was in the U.S. People with authority, knowledge, and close family members were definitely inputs into what people thought, but by-and-large people still came to their own conclusions.
You got to see the gradient of thought that people actually had about issues. People would say their insane ideas out loud. You could disagree with people and have them actually engage with your perception of reality.
This is kinda cute because it glosses over the lack of critical thinking skills, lack of research skills, and willingness to believe magic bullets, which would make most of us believe nothing of substance and yet fall for anyone with a silver tongue. Heck, we’re already dangerously close to that without LLMs.
Low trust societies are poorer because everyone has to spend much more effort on verifying everything. People give up business opportunities because they can't trust their partners. It becomes more nepotistic because people trust family over strangers.
Low information trust societies get destroyed by pandemics of both physical viruses (due to anti-vax and medical distrust; we can see this happening again with Ebola) and destructive memetic lies (see 20th century fascism).
I've lived in low information trust societies, and they were much intellectually healthier than high trust societies, at least in the white collar communities I was in.
Moving there, I was shocked at how "conspiratorial" everybody seemed about everything. Living there, I was shocked out how often they were right. But it didn't impact people's likelihood to do things. I think they are actually orthogonal in a way that is unintuitive.
Ignore the naysayers, they are just jealous. You got it totally tight, not everyone get's it like we do. We are facing alot of backlash for our beliefs these days.
Listen, I'm hosting this Telegram channel for people like us, where we can exchange free information without media bias, share the real facts and plan coordinated activities against these poisoning mainstream scumbags.
I also have a 20% coupon code for Wamp® Wolf-Testosteron for you, Wamp® really helped me stay awake and alert in these dire times.
But this is exactly my point -- in a low information trust society things like this our noise. They work in high information trust societies because who would sell medical products that don't work? A doctor is leading Wamp®, surely a doctor would never lie to us for money?
In low information trust society everything is noise except what passes a smoke-test or who you believe, which plays on this general tendency of humans to prefer comfort over challenge, confirmation over rejection.
A high information trust society has regulation in place which tracks such acts of manipulation so that this trust is not abused (e.g. regulation against misleading/false advertising).
A low information society promotes the notion that everyone is lying anyway and everyone is on his own to figure out what's true. So regulation gets dismantled, and the premise becomes "it's not lying if I can make enough people believe it".
> I don’t think you have ever actually lived in one.
I lived in societies of high and low information trust, and observed first-hand what happens on transition. If trust in public information is high, people contribute and challenge common sources of information, and there is high expectation and punishment to rectify, improving the quality and transparency of commonly agreed information.
In low trust environments, people start to distrust everything, initially seek out explanations but then largely gravitate towards information sources which confirm their assumptions or own bias, because they lack time, energy and skills for any other path. To stabilize themselves, they then build a mental "fortress" around their belief which is periodically fostered not by challenging it but by seeking out others who confirm it.
Advancing in this direction increases the general consensus that there is no common ground (because this requires common trust in some information source), it gets increasingly difficult to educate such fractured groups, because there is no longer a path for many to accept inconvenient truth in light of a more convenient "alternative truth".
This is poisonous in a democracy, because common agreement on facts is what's so crucial for this process.
Hence my learning that it's not a healthy direction for a society (and also the reason why systems attacking democracies don't aim to gain trust, they build distrust)
> but the most ideologically open cultures I’ve seen are LIT.
There is a huge difference between a ideologically open society and a low information trust society. Accepting other ideologies requires trust.
A low information trust society breaks down trust not just in institutions but also among citizens, which is the fertile ground for polarization and actively prevents open ideology.
You may have the wrong understanding of the terminology. A high-information-trust society doesn't mean that everyone blindly accepts a leader, it describes a system where trust is maintained. In a functioning democracy this happens because society constantly challenges institutions, as it DEMANDS to be able to trust them.
In low-information-trust systems, the consensus is that no one can be trusted. So no joint effort is taken to hold power accountable, everyone plays to his own fraction which erodes common grounds, solidarity and citizen power.
I was working on creating a next-n-actions predictor for one of our use cases and not paying much attention for a PoC. I was fairly happy with the progress for a few days, before actually reading the eval code and seeing that we leaked the final state in every eval.
It's nice to let claude run loose on porting from framework to framework (port my code from TRL to NemoRL to Tinker to VeRL) but looking at what it does in the intermediate steps makes me want to claw my eyes out. And getting it to adhere to our domain model (e.g. we have an SFTConfig and a .to_trl(), or a Row and a .to_harmony()) is impossible.
reply