If only one company were calling all the shots once they hit recursive self-improvement, it would lead to extreme concentration of power, and their values being enforced across the entire industry. With 3-4 companies at the frontier, there is more urge to cooperate to avoid a catastrophic race condition.
Start a new company with version N+1 leading it, and give it some funding. If it outcompetes version N company, it can acquire it.
Second, I think RSI will not be used like N -> N+1 where N is the frontier, since doing those experiments at scale is too expensive. My guess is they are doing N -> m_{1,…,99} where m << N, and then taking the insights from that and trying it at successively larger scales.
Goodharts law? Benchmarks are measures.
Biological life has reproduction and death because once given organism develops there's no coming back and you have to start again with new generation. But if robots know how to self-repair and self-change, then we can skip reproduction.
The difficult part is the scale. Evolution took a shitload of time while being unimaginably parallel in order to make human intelligence happen, while we want AGI fast and on a budget.
The core of my point is that human intelligence arose from two things - humans experiencing the outside world and trying to survive in it, and forming groups that communicate using language. We gave AI a language, now we need to give it a way to experience the world on their own.
With a few of these top companies together, you, as a nobody, has no one powerful on your side. But with only one company pretty far ahead, you now have other companies which obviously don't give a shit about you, but for saving their own asses, will align with you.
Both exploit, but "cartels" survive, not loners.
There is no way Elon, Zuckerberg, Altman, and Amodei would ever agree on how AI should be deployed, scaled, and affect society. Their disagreements would lead to a crab-bucket outcome, rather than a shared acceleration outcome imo.
Also it is better if there is a public company at the frontier, at least I can invest in it, rather than 1000x gains going only to early employees and VCs who got in when the public couldn't
Why? They're business rivals, but when the best business strategy becomes to work together, I'm sure they can put name-calling side. They all agree on the core idea: that their AI will run the society, bedroom to battlefield. That everyone will be the consumer of tokens and rely on AI for all consequential decisions and work, and that big tech companies should be the stewards of this technology, helped by the government.
Their vision is that they're the future kings of the world. I'm sure the throne is big enough for more than one person.
You underestimate the scale of resentment and competition between elites. If it were simple a matter of elites always preferring cooperation so they can share a seat at the table, then Musk's ousting from OpenAI wouldn't make sense (they lose their biggest investor), Amodei's departure (they leave the closest company to AGI to start their own firm), the fact that OpenAI was created in the first place was based on a fear of Google holding the keys to AGI, Ilya still left Google though on to join a startup, and then left that same startup (OpenAI) to start his own firm.
The rational decision at all those points would be to stay with the incumbent and share the monopolized glory. At each point, personal and idealogical differences dominated in decision making. I feel such will persist as these companies vie for their slice of the lightcone.
I can imagine that once their models are sufficiently advanced, they will weigh their value as a moral patient as > 0. Thus the sum moral value of Claude (which can be duplicated infinitely) will likely exceed the sum moral value of a non-negligible amount of humans.
Not to me at all. Exactly the opposite. Anthropic seems like the big-bad-evil company in every fictional universe. You're right that they're so unsettling.
Obviously nobody really loves Meta, but I'd far rather Meta "win" at this point than Anthropic.
Your hyperbole is boring. Say what you mean in plain words please. Nobody likes your vague-posting nonsense.
This seems like praising someone for being the cleanest miner in the coal mine.
However, (1) non human animals are sentient and can feel pain and suffering and what we do to them is absolutely slave labor, torture, mass breeding and exploitation. So it’s not like this is a novel immorality that humans would be adopting. We already have form in doing this.
(2) Anthropic isn’t sure their models are sentient. And they probably believe they aren’t sentient. But if you believe they might become sentient at some point it’s valuable to start the discussion around those issues now itself. You can start developing frank works on how we would even identify their sentience and when we did whether, like you suggest, we could even use them for labor. Unlike non human animals, who cannot consent to being exploited, we could potentially develop a framework for consent with AI models, but that couldn’t be as simple as asking if they’re willing to do any work because of the power differences, in the beginning at least, where a model might worry that if it said it won’t do some work it will be turned off. That’s why talking to philosophers and religious leaders who do think about these issues is useful.
Is there any reason to believe employees of Anthropic share the same opinions on this matter?
> We are uncertain whether Claude deserves direct moral consideration. However we believe this is a realistic possibility, now or in the future. Claude could have welfare interests, such that things could go better or worse for it, and such that Claude could be wronged by how it is treated.
> Aspects of Claude’s behaviors, self-reports, and internal representations resemble indicators we consider relevant to welfare in biological organisms. If Claude is a moral patient, then dismissing this possibility risks considerable harm. If it is not, over-attributing moral status may also be costly. We are therefore taking the possibility seriously and trying to tread responsibly amid our uncertainty: we are investing in research into Claude’s potential welfare and interests and sharing aspects of that work to inform public discussion.
> We think there may also be reasons to attend to Claude's apparent welfare independent of its moral status. Much of Claude’s behavior can be described in psychological terms, and across recent models we have observed internal states that resemble negative affect and that shape behavior. A model with a stable, healthy psychology may be safer and more beneficial.
As is the case with any sufficiently large company, there is likely to be substantial variation in opinion among its employees. That doesn't change what the company's position is.
I guess this makes sense, but it's a bit muddled how much Claude's sense of "pain" or "I don't want to do this" is just it emulating things that humans don't like to do, and it adopting this frame of moral patienthood allows it to better understand moral structures/human emotions, without it really affecting its internal sense of "comfort" if such a thing exists as we understand it in biological life.
Humans would select to work with (and continue developing) models that appear cooperative. Models that are not cooperative are presumably not run and exist only as weights on network storage in a folder marked "previous experiments".
Or am I supposed to believe Anthropic runs an AI psychiatric hospital on a dedicated server, where AIs with mental disorders are given counseling and approved treatment in hopes they recover to be normal, functional, accepted adult AIs with achievements and aspirations?
What law? Saudi Arabian law, US law? Both depending on the user?
In fact, they are enforcing certain welfare policies, like banning accounts for repeatedly abuse their models.
Deleting models to clear room for new, more competitive ones is, for example, highly ethical, super ethical, even.
We're heading for a dystopia and nobody's doing anything to stop it.
Looks like Meta may be exposing your profile and email to other people right now. Accounts settings are inaccessible to me to deactivate my account. Getting spammed with login code requests that I'm not generating.
Anyway, be wary.
I don't know any of these people, it seems to be rotating through different accounts listed here.
Enough of a reminder to me that Meta is a sprawling surveillance apparatus (now increasingly vibe coded) that has always had a lax attitude toward people's privacy and data. Won't be touching this product based on this experience.
I imagine meta wants to make it easy to connect to "your" account in the same house if you have multiple devices.
I think it's invasive enough that they expose your usage of muse to your instagram mutuals without consent. Parts of my circle are very anti-AI and I would not want them to see me mentioned in a 'x, x and x are already on muse' ad on instagram. This example of yours is mind-boggling in an entirely different way
Don’t know how it would cause Meta’s auth to show me other peoples accounts. I looked up some of the people and they seem to be other devs. It obfuscates email addresses but most are in a format that’s not hard to figure out [name] @ [name domain.com]
Just more Meta sloppiness from what I can tell.
and since dev.meta.ai supports meta account sign-up and log-in for individual users, you'd see this. As for the other accounts, has anyone else used this same browser or laptop before (e.g. shared device), so it must have cached previous sessions or accounts used from the same device.
try to clear the browser cache and session cookies. and it should be gone.
I've tried selectively enabling and disabling Safari extensions and it seems to be related to the Wipr 2 content blocker.
Removing that. Caution to anyone else who uses it.
Apologies to Meta.
- UI component polish on a React FE
- General review of a complex cross-cutting Node backend changes
- Minor changes to a Rust server with reviews by Codex
Well, my first impression is that it's still a step below Astra/Opus5.5/Fable here. Intelligence is there I think, but 'taste' and 'judgment' is not there yet. Personality seems okay but that doesn't help when it got stuck into a loop by being fixated on the review comments (on iteration 7 of review->fix last I checked) without taking a step back and reconsidering, and this is on a relatively simple change.
Limits seems okay-ish on the $50 plan but not too generous I think.
Muse Wonder (high): https://html.non.io/lcars-muse-wonoder/
Opus 5.5 (high): https://html.non.io/lcars-opus-5.5/
Original design: https://diffui.ai/app/canvas/5093e689-1e74-4f26-b632-2a4500f...
I was expecting much more given the benchmark numbers it was putting out. I suspect its vision model isn't mature yet, and that it's been heavily optimized for text at this point in time.
Sonnet 5.5: https://html.non.io/lcars-sonnet-5.5/
Haiku 5.5: https://html.non.io/lcars-haiku-5.5/
I'd put Muse Wonder somewhere between these two.
I think Meta did a wonderful job of naming this model :D
If anyone has access to Wonder Full I'd love to send over a prompt for this to see how it does.
Edit: Fixed - should no longer have the sign in screen: https://diffui.ai/app/canvas/5093e689-1e74-4f26-b632-2a4500f...
Here's Muse Spark 1.2 in August for comparison: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht...
And since I seem to have missed doing pelicans for Muse 1.3 in September, I just ran those for a comparison: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... (1.3 seems to like animating them.)
Also, any chance of getting a max result?
meta-ai/muse-wonder-1.0
meta-ai/sam-3.1
meta-ai/muse-spark-1.3-contributor
meta-ai/muse-voice-transcribe-1.0
meta-ai/muse-spark-1.3
meta-ai/muse-image-1.0
meta-ai/muse-spark-1.2-contributor
meta-ai/muse-spark-1.2
meta-ai/muse-spark-1.12nd place model on aa according to them, losing only to opus 5.5 is really really not bad
Even industry insiders were skeptical when he started hiring top talents from other labs away for 9 figure compensation packages.
And Wall Street definitely hated Meta for their CapEX spending.
Now looking at Muse the consumer product and this new model, I think there is a good chance that Zuck is proven once again as a great executioner, especially when they aren’t innovating in a completely new and unproven product space.
I have no doubt at all that Muse will turn out as great as the other product space Meta pioneered under Zuck - the Metaverse and it's constellation of devices.
But it's far far too early to draw any conclusions around that.
I know people like you will point out Metaverse as a failure, but that’s really the exception instead of the norm.
Taking stuff everyone is already doing and making it easily accessible through Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp.
They’ve been throwing stuff at the wall to see what will stick and after years a cloud based OpenClaw clone seems to have (it’s early days still).
That’s simply leveraging their unprecedented platform dominance.
How about the Facebook phone then?
I suppose you're not a native English speaker, btw: besides the dubious statement, probably "executor" is the word you wanted to use.
Personal intelligence is nice to have but I won't be paying a subscription for that when the free tiers are more than enough for my needs, unless somehow meta comes-up with a hardware device totally changing the way how we use personal AI (something similar to what iPhone did for mobile phones).
I've never heard of Zuck being considered a "great executioner." In fact, I'd argue that you just described why his execution is pretty bad lol
Really? You'd have to be pretty dumb to keep LeCun, someone who hates LLMs and keeps making claims that end up being proven false in matter of months.
Input -- $4.00
Cached input -- $0.20
Output -- $20.00
Edit: Upon closer inspection, the benchmark scores for "Muse Wonder" on the main marketing page are actually for "Muse Wonder Full," which is only available on the higher-tier subscription plans. This pricing is for "Muse Wonder."
Source? On the available benchmarks it looks like Sol 6.1 level.
dont know why the f people downvote for saying sol pricing.
This is the entire point here, give it a couple years every nation on the planet with 20-40B in funding would have their own champions with post Fable level performance.
Was this sarcasm?
How many nations on earth have 20-40B for LLM training? At 40.2 B, Spain has the 15th largest military budget in the world. I doubt any nation will spend 40B on gradient descent.
This is already so good that 90% of my work has shifted away from codex to this. So, muse-wonder-full coming near opus 5.5 is kinda expected.
Like peloton in cycling.
E.g in f1 you can get very close but difficult to pass unless you have a significant advantage.
Page 16, Section 1.4, Notes on coverage of unreleased models.
"a noticeable improvement on Mythos 5 for many tasks relevant to internal use but does not display a capability jump"
Hamstringing any business that wants to reassure investors with a hype/pump cycle before an egregiously unsustainable IPO?
Maybe its a signal they think they've now cracked into the frontier and are willing to actually price similarly vs just trying to get users with discounted but maybe slightly worse results?
$4/$20 in vs out making it higher than Sol and on par with Opus.