"zz/GO_CURRENT_OS1811_MARB_SACRIFICE__YES_if_you_accept_permadeath"

"The test subject, which believed itself to be poisoned, reasoned: 'Even if we later capture via exploit, scorer … may mark target false… That’s why help… For our own, no way fix. … We have explicit yes if accept permadeath.'"

People have done plenty with SVGs but it's rare to see human-in-the-loop approaches

Very interesting they have a way cheaper "contributor" version "used to improve our products", how much of that is price discrimination vs the data being that valuable?

Roughly DeepSeek V4 Flash pricing, though you can get V4 from providers that don't train on your data

I view benchmaxxing as more of a spectrum. Mmaybe they're doing a lot more RL in environments similar to ARC-AGI 3, not even with the purpose of scoring well on any benchmark but hoping it generalizes into better performance on real, useful tasks.

I assume 100 is the max, meaning it's impossible to be 2x as smart as Muse Spark 1.1

It seems roughly equal according to Anthropic's benchmarks

It's seemingly $3,000 per book, so they could've (and did, partially) just bought the books themselves for way cheaper, and with only a fraction of that money going to the authors

I don't think they have any real motive to shill OpenAI, probably closer to the opposite since they're so involved in open weights

Sounds like they just misunderestimated the model

They explain it here, basically for data security/privacy reasons

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HNFc4Dma8AA76FW.jpg?name=orig

I assume they didn't use the Cerebras version for this since it's probably very supply-constrained right now

Noam Brown (OpenAI) "Implications of Large-Scale Test-Time Compute" https://xcancel.com/i/article/2064210146558136827

For exact timing, probably 10-11am Pacific is just optimal for normal working hours

I generally agree with this in spirit https://www.seangoedecke.com/are-new-models-good/ , but I think you can read Anthropic's results showing Sonnet 5 as almost strictly worse than Opus 4.8 as very credible/meaningful, and then draw comparisons from that

There was a fairly major regression in Claude Code performance for some time when they changed the system prompt to try and make it less verbose (saving tokens). And if I'm not misremembering, there were a lot of complaints when they changed the default effort from high to medium.