Comment by Grimblewald

Opus has been fine on proteomics and bioinformatics for me. I have never seen a Claude model refuse on such grounds before in the past.

Claude is still the best IMO, but it feels like its most frustrating and grating aspects are not down to the model’s abilities, but the increasingly heavy hand of Anthropic expressing itself within the model. Fable’s comically useless responses almost seem like a cynical marketing tweak.

“This model is so powerful we basically can’t let it do anything. How terrifying! We need more money to make it stronger. Now do you see why we should be the ones who write the regulations? We’re the Good Guy AI Company Who Will Never Ever Ever Be Unethical after all.”

As this entity gains more ground, their models become increasingly annoying to use and their little act becomes more transparent. The whole “I’m-just a befuddled ethically-minded AI researcher who is perturbed by the power that I unwittingly discovered and I must warn the world” thing? Yeah fuck off. Your twee pandering to naïve nerds and cynical technocrats is nauseating and ordinary people can smell it a mile away. Completely repellent leadership who put up red flags to anyone left with a working ability to read between the lines of both spoken language and body language. The tech company equivalent of a sex predator who plays as the nice guy. Gross.

Nobody likes these companies and their models are annoying, but we’re going to put up with playing middle manager to these obnoxious programs because our jobs depend on it now, and these products are still the best on the market.

A breakthrough in tools that facilitate user-owned models and infrastructure is desperately needed for the sake of our dignity and sanity, if nothing else.

The filters are really bad.

Yesterday Fable rejected commenting on poetry because it had anatomy lines like:

got anotha round of acetylcholine from da boss.

I love computational mapping projects, because there is this hard problem of which towns to show on the map.

Your Scotland map shows towns without rail (although some had rail previously, like Callander, Aberfeldy), it prefers insignificant (population-wise) places while ignoring the larger cities next to it (Scone instead of Perth, Bannockburn instead of Stirling, Inverness is missing, Dundee is missing, Aberdeen is missing). All these places are drawn on the map, but not labelled.

All this clearly shows to me how bad it is. Yes it makes it look pretty, but given your task, I would have expected to give you meaningful map labelling.

Something basic like this would get you a long way:

    0. cluster population centers into commonly known cities (i.e. show London instead of Islington or Walhamstrow)
    1. display names of the top 10 population centers in the UK
    2. display towns with stations (if crowded prioritize termination points and junctions, and prioritize larger places over smaller places)

Having said that, its pretty cool to see the new and old network when zoomed in (assuming that it is half-way correct)

Fascinating. Can you explain why southern London is DC while northern London is AC?

The filter is not simply a bioweapons filter: the model card seems to say that the filter triggers on anything related to biology or chemistry.

Guessing you meant “grazes”

No, of the model always refuses to output then it’s finite

Sorry but that’s not the claim. The claim is wikipedia can return the same information. Please find me a migration script given my current db schema and new target schema.

The claim is absurd.