I'm not sure I follow your logic. Paying for a service does not mean you get access to all potential services a provider offers. Providers can choose to keep some services internal.
Silly example: I pay Netflix for their most basic plan, so I get ads. Just because I already pay them money, doesn't mean I have a right to no ads! It also doesn't mean I have a right to 8k streaming; maybe Netflix reserves that for their internal cinema.
Both companies offer "MAX" or "PRO" plans - and the best models were available to those customers. This new wave of "It's too dangerous for the public" is a new initiative from both companies.
I agree with your overall sentiment. Paying for "Claude Mini" doesn't get you "Claude Maximos".
However, the overall precedent that the companies have set is that if you pay for the top tier subscription, you get the top tier model. That's not true any more.
This is so similar to people arguing for plan tokens to be used with third party tools. It does not jive with my understanding of the world. Do people really expect that paying for a top plan actually gets you guaranteed access to everything? It’s great when it works but at the end of the day why build that false expectation.
My read is that this is motivated purely by cybersecurity concerns. I don't have the impression that the whitehouse is suddenly x-risk pilled. Still, it's good to see the US taking steps towards regulation of powerful AI. Also a sign that regulation remains a topic with bipartisan interest.
I'm not really clear what it means to be designated a "covered frontier model" however? If it's a standard term, I haven't encountered it before.
Clearly AI-generated writing (confirmed with Pangram). Amazed this has so many upvotes—are people even reading the article?
@dang I know you have so far resisted a rule for AI-generated content (as we now have for comments), but I personally would prefer a flag for articles so that I don't waste my time on slop.
This article is pretty slim on details, but I agree with the general argument that dualism is unnecessary to explain phenomenal consciousness. The word "consciousness" has a lot of baggage, which causes us to mislabel cognition as consciousness. [1] This is why I really like using terms like "qualia" or _phenomenal_ consciousness to make explicit what we're talking about.
I still don't like this new trend of dismissing the hard problem altogether. We really don't have an explanation of phenomenal consciousness—it might even require novel physics to explain! [2]
I'd also like to point out that, though this might seem like a semantic argument, it has meaningful consequences for how we approach science and ethics. [3] For example, if we are physicalists and accept that phenomenal consciousness is a property of the world, what does this tell us about other unobservable properties of the world science may be missing? (Recall that we only know about phenomenal consciousness through our own experience of it; we cannot observe it in others)
It felt very strange to me that the author construes belief in the hard problem as some sort of spiritual baggage from unempirical religious view. He seems to want to pit the "new understandings of reality developed over the last three centuries" _against_ the idea of phenomenal consciousness, which is just absurd to me. As far as I understand, it is far more rooted in German idealism and its Cartesian roots than in any sort of religious spirit.
I'm almost convinced that those who deny the metaphysical (or, if you insist, the plausibly merely physical) force of qualia are philosophical zombies trying to persuade us against the existence of the most obviously true piece of knowledge we have! Or, more generously, they are so steeped in the premises of modern empirical science that they treat their fundamental phenomenal experience as so untrustworthy as to be disregarded, despite its actual necessity in employing those very premises.
Poor, disregarded qualia! Oh that the scientists could see how much they owe to you.
Fair enough if the use of “dopamine” is imprecise, but excessive screen time / doomscrolling / shitposting is definitely enough to wire you awake on its own, without caffeine.
IMO this is the consequence of a relentless focus on feature development over core product refinement. I often have the impression that Anthropic would benefit from a few senior product people. Someone needs to lend them a copy of “Escaping the Build Trap.” Just because we _can_ rapidly add features now doesn’t mean we should.
PS I’m not referencing a well-known book to suggest the solution is trite product group think, but good product thinking is a talent separate from good engineering, and Anthropic seems short on the later recently
I think they've dug themselves into a complexity trap. Beyond the stochastic nature of the models themselves, I don't think they're able to reason about their software anymore. Too many levers, too many dials, and code that likely nobody understands.
But worse, based on the pronouncements of Dario et al I suspect management is entirely unsympathetic because they believe we (SWEs) are on the chopping block to be replaced. And intimation that putting guard rails around these tools for quality concerns ... I'm suspecting is being ignored or discouraged.
In the end, I feel like Claude Code itself started as a bit of a science experiment and it doesn't smell to me like it's adopted mature best practices coming out of that.
Essentially they should hire a few of the old school product guys from Apple. Best me to it, but the obsession on UX and quality from earlier Apple is exactly what they urgently need instead of tech folks trying to engineer themselves into complicated rabbit holes and shenanigans.
They need to keep up with demand, because compute resources are clearly limited. That means they have no choice but to add these features, or things break, or they have to stop taking new customers. All of those options are unacceptable.
They had like 100 devs making 600k at one point. The issue is certainly not lack of talent. More like, they insist on forcing the vibe coding narrative. Some candidates are refusing interview requests accordingly.
I am a huge fan of Ben Lerner and have a copy of “Transcription” at home, waiting to be read. Autofiction is in many ways _the_ dominant mode of contemporary American literature, particularly among the literati of NYC/London (cf. Ocean Vuong, Tao Lin, Patricia Lockwood, etc., etc.). It can, for this reason, feel overdone and out of touch. But Lerner comes to the topic with such skill and intelligence, he really defines the genre for me, in a positive light.
Agreed. Lerner has an unique way of digging into solipsism that's truly genuine and comical (whereas I feel Knausgård and most of the autofiction crowd's stuff comes across as glorified navel-gazing). It's no wonder he's been compared to Foster Wallace in that regard, who also wrote about deeply human struggles yet still is dismissed as a lit-bro pseudointellectual.
Yeah, good comparison. To Lerner's credit, he is always a poet at heart, which leads to concise, lyrical prose. DFW is voluminous in comparison; when it lands, its great, but it can feel overinflated/overdone when it doesn't.
> People hate AI so much that they are prone to attribute to it everything that’s going wrong in their lives, regardless of the truth. That’s why they mix real arguments, like data theft, with fake ones, like the water stuff. Employers do it, too. Most layoffs are not caused by AI, but it’s the perfect excuse to do something that’s otherwise socially reprehensible.
Pertinent quote. A lot of AI discourse goes in circles trying to evaluate the truthiness of every individual complaint about AI. Obviously it's good to ensure claims are factual! But I believe it misses a broader point that people are resistant to AI, often out of fear, and are grasping for strategies to exert control. Or at least that's my read of it.
Refuting individual claims won't make a difference if the underlying anxieties aren't addressed (e.g., if I lose my job will I be compensated, will we protect ourselves against x-risk, etc).
I doubt there is a single profile about "not accelerate blindly on adoption everywhere".
On my side the biggest concern is the lake of transparency of ecological impact. This is not strictly related to LLMs though, data centers are not new, and all the concerns about people keeping a leverageable level of control through distributed power is not new.
How so? Opus and Sonnet are frontier models which cannot easily be replicated. Compute has real physical constraints which require appropriate procurement at this scale. At least those two points seem like pretty strong moats against the majority of companies.
You don't need to "replicate" Opus and Sonnet, you just need to match their overall performance at lower cost. That's been absolutely doable so far, with a steadily decreasing lag time.
That's a fair response. But I'm not aware of any metrics supporting the point that the lag time is decreasing. The discourse I've seen has more focused on the ways Claude/OpenAI/Google have pulled away from the rest of the pack.
To be clear, I accept you might be right, but I think the crux is whether lag time is increasing, steady or growing.
Silly example: I pay Netflix for their most basic plan, so I get ads. Just because I already pay them money, doesn't mean I have a right to no ads! It also doesn't mean I have a right to 8k streaming; maybe Netflix reserves that for their internal cinema.
reply