1. You can't ask the model to "think hard" about something anymore - model decides 2. Reasoning traces are no longer true to the thinking – vs opus 4.6, they really are summaries now 3. Reasoning is no longer consciously visible to the agent

They claim the personality is less warm, but I haven't experienced that yet with the prompts we have – seems just as warm, just disconnected from its own thought processes. Would be great for our application if they could improve on the above!

It's also kind-of their point that they find the information delivery more important than the prose; they're leaning into their situation :-D

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47596488

Points: 3

# Comments: 2

Still, my pocket is my iPhone pocket.

Until they release something the size of the X or smaller, I’m sticking with my iPhone 13 Mini or eventually going for a Razr style Android.

Every year they release something, I go check it out. My love for Apple dies a bit more.

On the other hand, it's amazing that a 512x512 image can be represented by 85 tokens (as in OAI's API), or 263 tokens per second for video (with Gemini). It's as if the memory vs compute tradeoff has morphed into a memory vs embedding question.

This dichotomy reminds me of the "Apple Rotators - can you rotate the Apple in your head" question. The spatial embeddings will likely solve dynamics questions a lot more intuitively (ie, without extended thinking).

We're also working on this space at FlyShirley - training pilots to fly then training Shirley to fly - where we benefit from established simulation tools. Looking forward to trying Fei Fei's models!

For small models and when attention is "taken up", these sorts of questions really send a model for a loop. Agreed - especially noticeable with small reasoning models.

While I can compare good journalists to extremely great and intuitive journalists, I don't have really any references for this in the prompting realm (except for when the Dall-e Cookbook was circulating around).

> You may output only up to 500 words, if the best summary is less than 500 words, that's totally fine. If details are unclear, do not fill-in gaps, do leave them out of the summary instead.

I'm interested in your approach to certification. I've heard the LSA limits are increasing dramatically, but how sure are you that MOSAIC is going to turn-out as you hope for fly-by-wire control? Are you prepared for the regulatory environment as it is today by going with an experimental platform like the Sling? Usually there's a mandate for a home-builder to build "51%" of the aircraft, so I'm also wondering how that works for a characteristics augmentation system such as yours. What percent of the control laws fit into the 51%?

On the certified side, Piper is shipping the Pilot 100i trainer aircraft with Electronic Stability and Protection (ESP), preventing students from doing some wild stuff while flying solo, using the Garmin G3X certified avionics. Garmin has also been working on auto-land. With a continued development of these certified platforms, combining a ballistic parachute, how much room is there for you with an experimental aircraft?

I looked at the prescribed spot at Oshkosh and sadly couldn't find your booth as I was excited to meet you-all.. Previously I enjoyed flying Joby's sim which is a great example of Simplified Vehicle Operations (SVO). While they're in the powered lift space, I'm curious how much overlap you two have in the control-law certification path of your SVO aircraft.

Finally, as an aviation startup founder myself (FlyShirley.com - Your AI Copilot from Sim to Sky), I'm approaching this from a different angle for a lot of the same reasons, including how task saturation, fatigue/distraction are contributing factors in many accidents.

Super excited to see more aviation startups on hn. Hope to chat at some point. Cheers!