So, you can expect coding skills to continue to outpace the native LLM taste.

I don't see any reasonable way they could have saved themselves besides something crazy like requiring every family member use a different feudal lord - one person gets Google, one person gets Apple, one poor guy gets Microsoft...

OK, so I did understand, but this sounds very hand wavy to me. You say it's a 'minority'; well sure, I never claimed that was >50% of images, so I suppose yes, that's technically true. And it is also true that a false positive on inverting is usually nastier than a false negative, which is why everyone defaults to dimming rather than inverting.

But you don't sound like you have evaluated it very seriously, and at least on my part, when I browse my dark-mode Gwern.net pages, I see lots of images and diagrams which benefit from inverting and where I'm glad we have InvertOrNot.com to rely on (and it's rarely wrong).

It may be nice to be able to advertise "No AI" at the top of the page, but I don't understand why you are so committed to biting this bullet and settling for leaving images badly handled when there is such a simple easy-to-use solution you can outsource to, and there's not a whole lot else a 'dark mode PDF' can do if 'handle images correctly' is now out of scope as acceptable collateral damage and 'meh, the user can just solve it every time they read every affected page by pushing a button'. (If Veil doesn't exist to save the user effort and bad-looking PDFs, why does it exist?)

I don't understand how you handle raster images. You simply cannot invert them blindly. So it sounds like you just bite the bullet of never inverting raster images, and accepting that you false-positive some vector-based diagrams? I don't see how that can justify your conclusion "it wasn't necessary". It sounds necessary to me.

One can fairly reliably use a small NN to classify images by whether they should be inverted or just dimmed, and I've used it with great success for years now on my site: https://invertornot.com/ https://gwern.net/invertornot

---

On a side note, it'd be nice to have an API or something to let one 'compile' a PDF to dark-mode version PDF. Ephemeral browser-based is a drawback as often as a benefit.

A real example: Said Achmiz (obormot.net) uses PMWiki for his D&D campaigns, and PMwiki lets you control who can see a page, so he can do access control tricks like a page for a location, where only the DM can see all subpages with all the secrets, while each player can see their own 'notes' subpage. So everyone in their own web browser can go to the same page and see the same thing overall, but will see just their private additional information. And this is quite flexible so you can encode whatever patterns you need. You don't need some WotC fancy custom CMS for your D&D campaign to keep track of information and silo appropriately, you just need a design pattern on wikis.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you make that argument that 'I don't believe in kinks or discontinuities in code release due to AI, because so many AI coding systems have come out incrementally since 2020', then OP does provide strong evidence for an AI acceleration - the smooth exponential!

At least in theory, adaptiveness should save samples and in this case, compute. (As noted, you can always turn the parallel into serial and so the serial approach, which gets information 'from the future', should be able to meet or beat any parallel approach on sample-efficiency.)

So if the batch only matches the adaptive search, that suggests that the LLM is not reasoning well in the adaptive setting and is poorly exploiting the additional information. Maybe some sort of more explicit counterfactual reasoning/planning over a tree of possible outcomes?