Wiki Contributions



Totally agree with you here. I think probably half of their development energy was spent getting to where GPT-4 Functions were right when Functions came out and they were probably like...oh...welp.


Just seeing this, sorry. I think they could have gotten a lot of the infrastructure going even before GPT-4, just in a sort of toy fashion, but I agree, most of the development probably happened after GPT-4 became available. I don't think long context was as necessary, because my guess is the infrastructure set up behind the scenes was already parceling out subtasks to subagents and that probably circumvented the need for super-long context, though I'm sure having longer context definitely helps.

My guess is right now they're probably trying to optimize which sort of subtasks go to which model by A/B testing. If Claude 3 Opus is as good as people say at coding, maybe they're using that for actual coding task output? Maybe they're using GPT-4T or Gemini 1.5 Pro for a central orchestration model? Who knows. I feel like there are lots of conceivable ways to string this kind of thing together, and there will be more and more coming out every week now...


It took longer to get from AutoGPT to Devin than I initially thought it would, though in retrospect it only took "this long" because that's literally about how long it takes to productize something comparatively new like this.

It does make me realize though that the baking timer has dinged and we're about to see a lot more of this stuff coming out of the oven.


Agreed. You'll bifurcate the mission and end up doing both things worse than you would have done if you'd just picked one and focused.


Your position seems to be one that says this is not something to be worried about/looking at. Can you explain why?

For instance, if it is a desire to train predictive systems to provide accurate information, how is 10% or even 1-2% label noise "fine" under those conditions (if, for example, we could somehow get that number down to 0%)?


Ah. Yeah, it's been forever and a day since I used it as well. Bummer to hear they've succumbed to the swiping model!


Isn't OkCupid still around? I was confused by your saying that it no longer exists. Did it change ownership or style or something?


This was a lot clearer, thank you.


You speak with such a confident authoritative tone, but it is so hard to parse what your actual conclusions are.

You are refuting Paul's core conclusion that there's a "30% chance of TAI by 2033," but your long refutation is met with: "wait, are you trying to say that you think 30% is too high or too low?" Pretty clear sign you're not communicating yourself properly.

Even your answer to his direct follow-up question: "Do you think 30% is too low or too high for July 2033?" was hard to parse. You did not say something simple and easily understandable like, "I think 30% is too high for these reasons: ..." you say "Once criticality is achieved the odds drop to 0 [+ more words]." The odds of what drop to zero? The odds of TAI? But you seem to be saying that once criticality is reached, TAI is inevitable? Even the rest of your long answer leaves in doubt where you're really coming down on the premise.

By the way, I don't think I would even be making this comment myself if A) I didn't have such a hard time trying to understand what your conclusions were myself and B) you didn't have such a confident, authoritative tone that seemed to present your ideas as if they were patently obvious.

Load More