A/B testing alone would result in a performance nerf for one group.

8-bit quantized models will barely show degradation on benchmarks. The performance is reliably at 99% of the non-quantized model. 4-bit quantization retains somewhere around 95-98% performance on benchmarks. But if you've ever used a 4-bit model, it feels lobotomized.

And just consider what a compny serving these models would do if they were at capacity. Would they stop serving the model altogether? Of course they wouldn't...

Denying that models experience purposeful degradation is gaslighting.

I don't think is true but maybe I'm misreading your perspective?

What part of "job has changed" is kool-aid, or an excuse?

> Better to swim against the tide than letting yourself get swept up in the current and drowning.

If you really think AI is something you can "defeat" by being stubborn then best of luck to you.

> It no longer surprises me, but the profound lack of empathy shown by AI (or any other popular hype du jour) proponents is worrying. A large numbers of fellow humans are saying “this thing is negatively impacting my life” and the response is “lol, and you should be thankful”.

Not sure how this relates to my comment even a little bit.

It shouldn't be surprising that if you swim against the tide by doing things the old way, you are going to feel more burnt out because of it.

They can limit how hard the model thinks for a given effort. Suddenly xhigh only thinks as hard as high did, and high shifts down to medium effort, and so on.

They can also serve quantized models. And this has the benefit of practically not showing up in benchmarks at all even if the user experience is obviously degraded.

The other major thing the labs do is silently drop the usage limits. This has become very noticeable for codex users who are suddenly burning through their weekly usage in a few hours.

This looks like an optimization of current training methods, and a good one, but not "RSI" in the sense of a system that can perpetually improve itself forever.

And it's absolutely not the case that google can't detect ad fraud - in fact they are VERY good at detecting it when they want to.

OpenAI got wind that a millenium problem was being solved. And that feels a bit like the critical move in chess. That is - it was a signal that AI advanced far enough that it would be worth spending a lot of time and resources solving a millenium problem.

1) address the claude 20x plan usage being only 6-7x the ceiling of the claude pro plan

2) either fix opus 5, make it completely free, or delete it entirely

Because utilities are regulated monopolies that exist to benefit society. The companies building data-centers are well aware that the system isn't setup to handle a customer that suddenly doubles or triples the electric demand of a whole town over night. They are taking advantage of that until someone steps in.

Feel free to cite at least one reputable source.

There's a very good reason a book (and movie) like The Big Short was such a big hit. It's because it was about the handful of people who actually saw the crash coming and were confident enough to put their money and reputation on the line.

Anecdotally, I have family who don't follow the stock market at all and are talking about the "AI Bubble" that's about to pop.

Tulips, 1929, Dotcom, Great Recession, 2010's Flash Crash - none of these were in the public discussion before they happened.