Notwithstanding the duplication of these posts across social media, OpenAI, and Anthropic ("it's all the model, they just tell it to keep going" if you beat anything with RL enough ... it's going to do the thing)
Here's my issue with this post:
> True to the spirit of the challenge, they didn’t use millions of dollars in computer power. They used Fable 5.1, working within Claude Science, a platform scientists can pay to use.
Okay, billions of dollars have been poured into these agentic LMs, right? Each training run to get the next increment is costing millions of dollars?
This feels like an obvious jab at Navier-Stokes, but where we get to shift the numbers around to hide where the compute actually is being spent ... compute is being spent. It's either being spent in amortization to make the search smarter ahead of time, during training, or its being spent after.
Also love: scientists get to pay Anthropic to work within their special science harness to do science. That's exactly what I dreamed of doing when I pursued physics in undergrad, one or two companies holding the keys to "progress" for a monthly subscription price.
What a weird thing to be butthurt about. You don't have to pay them. Do it the old fashioned way, with elbow grease and pots of coffee. Or invest in local AI.
Or embrace the future and realize that you couldn't imagine everything that would unfold, when you pursued your undergrad.
There was a time when a generation of hackers got (rightfully) worked up about the Microsoft tax for every PC sold. It's not hard to see that somebody gets mad if they believe that an Anthropic/OpenAI tax is about to become the standard when doing any serious Physics/Math/... research or writing code.
The term "hackers" didn't just apply to those of us who wiped the thing off first chance they got. Folks working in IT of large corps which had fleets of a 5-digit numbers of PCs to administer and for each of them, Microsoft took their cut.
Just because a description doesn't apply to you personally doesn't mean it's misrepresenting things.
mccoyb · · focus · HN ↗
Here's my issue with this post:
> True to the spirit of the challenge, they didn’t use millions of dollars in computer power. They used Fable 5.1, working within Claude Science, a platform scientists can pay to use.
Okay, billions of dollars have been poured into these agentic LMs, right? Each training run to get the next increment is costing millions of dollars?
This feels like an obvious jab at Navier-Stokes, but where we get to shift the numbers around to hide where the compute actually is being spent ... compute is being spent. It's either being spent in amortization to make the search smarter ahead of time, during training, or its being spent after.
Also love: scientists get to pay Anthropic to work within their special science harness to do science. That's exactly what I dreamed of doing when I pursued physics in undergrad, one or two companies holding the keys to "progress" for a monthly subscription price.
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
Or embrace the future and realize that you couldn't imagine everything that would unfold, when you pursued your undergrad.
How you gonna get mad about all this?
teiferer · · focus · HN ↗
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
I was mad that I had to pay for windows just to wipe that shit and put linux on. If I used it, I wouldn't have been mad about it at all.
I've never been mad about paying for my software.
teiferer · · focus · HN ↗
Just because a description doesn't apply to you personally doesn't mean it's misrepresenting things.
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
teiferer · · focus · HN ↗
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
I guess you're mad about the quasi-monopoly of Tesla, too, since they're the only electric car selling worth a hoot.