HN is social media, saner than most, but I still don't assume sincerity.

> Yet, saying this simple stance just as I did now, that both of them are guilty, will have people call you an "ultra" or call you a conspiracy theorist, that you are a fence sitter, that you don't know what you are talking about, and so and so on.

If you mean people online, then that's expected. It's what I meant by social media being unproductive. Hostility attracts engagement and makes it more visible.

National politics is heavily influenced by economic interests, including global capital. And as wealth concentrates so does political power. That doesn't mean ordinary citizens have no political agency though, don't underestimate the difference you can make in your local community.

To be more precise, it was passive nihilism I was criticizing. That's the sentiment I sensed in the original comment.

Social media is a veil of manipulation, engagement maximization, and bots. Do not misconstrue it as any kind of real or productive politics. There is a signal there amongst the noise, but it's hard to make sense of if you do not have a coherent world model or belief system. You have to learn to cut through it if you want to keep your sanity.

They did speed it up in the last few days [1], but I don't find it to be enough.

[1] https://x.com/sama/status/2105688354834756036

This is also the reason why I'm swapping over to Anthropic for a month. 6.1 Sol seems good, but is unbearably slow even with 6.1 being more token efficient than 5.5.

Not exactly like what this paper is suggesting, but similar in the sense it lets the model decide what and how to persist across turns.

I recreated this in Pi, with a max token limit on how long the note can be, to pressure the model to be concise. Ends up being cheaper than summary compaction too.

I despise this kind of paternalism by Antropic/OpenAI.

> It's so stupid it can't follow the basic spirit of instructions

I read this as more of a misaligned intelligence, as opposed to a lack of it entirely.

Would be interesting to see some sort of ablation test too. E.g. what parts of Codex contribute most to the perf, and can they be recreated more minimally in something like Pi.

I only take the Intelligence Index value roughly though. Considering they put Opus 5 (High) at the same level as Fable 5 (Max), I don't trust it that much.

Edit: 5.1-xhigh seems to be cheaper than 5-max, and 5.1-xhigh has a higher index score than 5-max. Also interesting that Fable 5.1 (high) is comparable to Opus 5 (max), but nearly half the price.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/models#cost-tabs

Also seems like a requirement for any sort of continual learning capabilities as well.

I'm also seeing notes like on Opus 5 saying it was a run with a older serial version of program.md, so the graphs aren't complete apples-to-apples comparisons?

Edit: the blog seems to address these https://www.primeintellect.ai/blog/measuring-autonomous-rese...