Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pertymcpert's commentslogin

The LLVM community used this model for years with Phabricator before it was EOL'd and moving to GH and PRs was forced. It's a proven model and works very well in complex code bases, multiple components and dependencies that can have very different reviewer groups. E.g: 1) A foundational change to the IR is the baseline commit 2) Then some tweaks on top to lay the groundwork for uses of that change 3) Some implementation of a new feature that uses the new IR change 4) A final change that flips the feature flag on to enable by default.

Each of these changes are dependent on the last. Without stacked PRs you have o only one PR and reviewing this is huge. Maybe thousands of lines of complex code. Worse, some reviewers only need to see some parts of it and not the rest.

Stacked diffs were a godsend and the LLVM community's number one complaint about moving to GitHub was losing this feature.


What might that be?

Shit. Really? You mean they modified their frontier model to improve it and make it better and just called it a day? That their benchmarks which show step change improvements are just the result of successive changes on an EXISTING MODEL?

Say it isn't so! I for one like to start from scratch each time I release my version of my compiler toolchain.


They didn't call it a day. They created an entire deceptive hype cycle around it.

No one seems to have actually read the system card all the way through.

The reason they didn't publish it was that it's orders of magnitude more successful at writing exploits vs Opus 4.6, which only managed it something like 2% of the time.


Yeah...except Mythos's large context perf seems to be much better than Opus 4.6.


If anything I’m seeing too much skepticism and not enough alarm. People burying their heads in the sand, fingers in their ears denying where this is all going. Unbelievable except it’s exactly what I expect from humans.

Forgive me, but this is probably the 29th world destroying model I've seen in the last 4 years, that will change everything, take all the jobs, cure all the cancers and eat all the puppies.

I’m beyond trying to convince people to take this technology seriously. You’ll learn for yourself.

OpenAI didn't want to make GPT2 available because it was "too dangerous" [1].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/14/elon-musk...


Alarm from hype is what they want, you are playing straight into their PR dept's hands

I'm not talking about Anthropic in particular. Other frontier labs will only be at most a year behind.

I'm seeing the future here beyond just what's in front of us.


alarm about what, exactly?

What evidence makes you say that? Do you have insider info?

Neither party provided the evidence. I wonder why people like to take the side of the optimistic.

We already know Opus can find real vulnerabilities ([1], [2], ...), so it's not exactly surprising that a bigger model is better at it.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47273854

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47611921


That is not thousands high-severity vulnerabilities as above commenter stated. Even many local models have found individual vulnerabilities.

What evidence do we have that it is true?

I don't need any. I'm not making the claim that it's "most likely a lie".

This isn’t talking about compaction. This refers to performance as the model is loaded with 500k to 1m tokens.

Ah, thanks, makes sense, I’ll read more about this

Did you read the article?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: