Comment by Aperocky
1 day ago
That's assuming the model is actually as good as they say it is. Given the amount of AI researchers over the past 3 years claiming supernatural capability from the LLM they have built, my bayesian skepticism is through the roof.
don't confuse bayesian skepticism with plain old contrarian bias. a true bayesian updates their priors, I'd say this is an appropriate time to do so. also don't confuse what they sell with what they have internally.
There haven't been any priors to update so far.
All LLMs got better for sure, but they are still definitively LLM and did not show any sign of having purpose. Which also made sense, because their very nature as statistical machines.
Sometimes quantity by itself lead to transformative change... but once, not twice, and that has already happened.
Anthropic has behaved the least like this of the AI companies.
They made a claim that 100% of code would be AI generated in a year, over a year ago.
That was a prediction. It was not a claim of their current capabilities. If that is the one you reach for then I feel my point has been made.
They were right, it's hit 100% at a number of large tech companies. (They missed their initial prediction of 90% 6 months ago, because the models then available publicly weren't capable enough.)
15 replies →