The natural next argument that I see a lot is "well it's still all probabilistic", which is technically true. However, don't the atoms that make up the cells that make up a human move around and interact based on probabilities?
Saying a LLM is all just based on probabilities is pretty meaningless, even if it is true, since everything else is just based on probabilities too. What matters is the massive amount of machinery that generates those probabilities. Anything from rolling a dice to an accurate model of an entire human, or even a model of the entire universe, is all "just probabilities".
> Honestly? That's not just valuable—it's essential.
I'm curious if you wrote this or had a LLM write it.
I'm genuinely curious to be clear as I don't see why anyone would bother to go through a LLM to write such a short reply. Have we reached the point where Claudeisms that are this obnoxious have become part of regular speech?
I suspected as much, and that brings us to the second issue where if we use a cohort of judges then the model that likes it's own code the most still wins.
Here's the question I ask about every project that claims to make a LLMs output so much better: If it works so well then why would the model provider not just put it in the system prompt? Or in the case of interactive skills, why would Claude Code/Codex not make it a core part of the product?
On top of that, if your magic markdown file really does work then where's the evidence showing that? These projects never include even basic benchmarks. At best they're entirely vibe based, however more often they're completely untested. Give us a proper benchmark, even a single prompt and it's output with and without your skill in use would be better than every other project out there.
This is not actually what the reviewer prompt says, or perhaps it is, I don't know since they don't make it public. I'm just pointing out how it seems like a bad idea to ask a LLM to make a subjective judgement on things like "taste". If the SOTA LLM witting the code could not produce tasteful code then why would a different LLM be able to judge the "taste" of that code?
Which LLM should we even use to judge taste? Is it giving an unfair advantage to Model X if we use Model X as the judge? Maybe we should use multiple models as the judge, but now the model that's best at recognising and praising its own code has an advantage. The whole thing is just an unsolvable problem when a LLM is the judge.
> You are a senior SWE-Bench reviewer, make no mistakes.
I don't know what a better approach would look like while still remaining feasible, however this approach of telling a LLM to make a subjective judgement seems fundamentally flawed.
I'm not sure about Kalshi, however on most sports betting sites you actually are betting against the house. The betting sites all have in-house models (or piggyback off other sites) that are much better at predicting odds than the general public. If someone is making money then the sites just place limits on that account so they're not losing money.
Most ad blockers do already use MV3, uBlock Origin is the only one still using V2 as far as I know.
There are some drawbacks to V3, however none prevent creating an effective ad blocker, as demonstrated by the fact that many exist. Though saying that doesn't make for nearly as effective clickbait...
OP, I assume your comment[1] is getting flagged because of the obvious LLM usage. No one wants to interact with a comment that's not written by a human.
That don't fall back to Opus if their classifier thinks you might be working on anything that might be a competitor's product. It silently injects instructions into the prompt to sabotage your work. Read the policy above, it's insane to me that they're publicly admitting to this.
This is absolutely absurd. Claude code is of course using the cache (and this can be verified by looking at the traffic). It would be an incredibly stupid design to resend the whole input without a cache for every input, every tool use, etc..
> especially with all the stuff that SpaceX has put into orbit in recent years
I've heard this repeated a lot but I've never seen anyone do the maths. StarLink satellites are all in very low orbits, so intuitively it seems like most debris from a collision would just end up deorbiting.
Maybe, but they certainly used it for marketing too. At the time they contacted a bunch of publications and gave them access but told them they could only share snippets of the output [1]. The only reason to set restrictions like that is marketing.
> Now, OpenAI's terms of service don't let me give you the full list. I have to curate them, and show you a sample. Those are the terms and conditions I agreed to.
OpenAI has been pulling this marketing trick for years. Remember how GPT-3 was too dangerous to release? It's also probably bad PR if script kiddies have access to GPT model with no guardrails even if it doesn't enable any significant attacks.
> SQLite does not (currently) accept agentic code. However the project will accept agentic bug reports that include a reproducible test case. Patches or pull requests demonstrating a possible fix, for documentation purposes, are welcomed.
Saying a LLM is all just based on probabilities is pretty meaningless, even if it is true, since everything else is just based on probabilities too. What matters is the massive amount of machinery that generates those probabilities. Anything from rolling a dice to an accurate model of an entire human, or even a model of the entire universe, is all "just probabilities".