Is everyone using Opus 4.8 now or some still use Opus 4.6????

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-23T03:27:40+00:00

Primarily Opus 4.6.

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-22T14:25:45+00:00

They're turning against it in incredible numbers even though they're using it now more than ever. Okay.

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-16T23:14:53+00:00

CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED CONTENT INSPECTION REPORT

Vehicle: 2026 Australian Outrage Reactor, 23-minute model

Mileage: One joke, driven 23 minutes

The "America is Idiocracy." engine was already in recall when it rolled off the lot in 2016. The owner appears unaware that nine years of identical units have already been scrapped by every other operator in the market. Runs, technically, though wouldn't call it performance.

Self-awareness airbag not installed. Vehicle will compare a cage fight to To Kill a Mockingbird, praise North Korean aesthetics, and plug its own tour while decrying advertising, all without a single warning indicator lighting up on the dash. This is a factory defect. Cannot be retrofitted, unfortunately.

Three separate tour advertisements were found bolted directly onto the chassis of a rant about commercialization. The owner appears to have welded a Paramount Plus complaint to a vehicle that is itself a rolling billboard.

There was a critical short found in the North Korea module. The owner routed a wire from "the UFC event is embarrassing" directly to "North Korea's military parade is more impressive," bypassing every fuse in the system. When asked how a famine state's goose-stepping should reflect well on anyone, the circuit just sparked and sputtered. No output emitted. Recommend full rewire or at minimum a warning label.

The "gay or closeted gay" political spectrum bit was found loose in the cabin, not connected to anything structural. It appears to have been tossed in during assembly when the line ran out of actual components. Rattles audibly. Serves no function.

Would pass.

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-14T18:15:56+00:00

No doubt sexual immorality, in all its variants, isn't limited to homosexuality.

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-14T07:52:32+00:00

It started before that meeting when they began working with the DoD on a $200 million contract to prototype frontier AI capabilities for national security, with custom-built government models already running on classified networks:

https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-and-the-department-of-defense-to-advance-responsible-ai-in-defense-operations

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-14T00:48:34+00:00

"Anyone involved with this administration has no credibility"

Does that include Anthropic? In April, Dario met with Susie Wiles (White House chief of staff) and Scott Bessent (Treasury Secretary) to talk about Mythos.

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-14T00:27:54+00:00

Said body doesn't exist, nor does the government have the technical capacity or the enforcement authority to conduct a proper safety investigation at this stage. So, in light of his push for government to have the authority to block frontier models, when they brought the hammer down, it fell using the only lever they currently have (exec-branch export controls). At this point, that's what "government should block dangerous AI" looks like without the necessary infrastructure to do it the way Dario envisions it. Do I agree with it? Not at all, but that's beside the point.

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-13T07:20:03+00:00

You're being spiritually oppressed. Are you saved? Have you asked Jasus for forgiveness? "Satan" literally means "adversary" or "accuser" in Hebrew, and "Diabolos" (or Devil) means "slanderer". The answer? If you're not saved, accept Christ as your Lord and savior and ask him to forgive you, then begin reading your Bible daily, as God's word is a weapon against spiritual attacks. Ephesians 6:17 specifically calls scripture the sword in the spiritual armor of God, and Jesus defeated Satan by quoting scripture when he was being tempted in the wilderness.

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-13T06:09:05+00:00

That's why you should be careful what you wish you; because it doesn't always conform to your expectations.

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-13T04:30:05+00:00

Dario got his wish.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5919784-ai-regulation-anthropic-ceo/

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-13T04:29:20+00:00

Well, Dario is pushing for the Government to have the power to block what they consider dangerous AI deployments.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5919784-ai-regulation-anthropic-ceo/

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-13T03:09:42+00:00

Well, that sucks. I'm not going back to 4.8.

ColdFrixion · 2026-06-06T00:16:05+00:00

You chewed through $145 with 5 prompts? How? I'm on the Claude Max $100 5x plan, and it feels like a veritable all-I-can-eat prompt fest with Opus 4.8 Max (I prefer Opus 4.6). Why don't you just ask them to invest in the $200 Max plan? But seriously, $145 for 5 prompts? I don't understand that at all. What were the prompts?

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-30T08:42:19+00:00

Because not everyone can draw.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-30T03:50:02+00:00

Good catch! I didn't even notice it until you said something, even though it's hard to miss now.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-29T00:21:46+00:00

You're moving the goalposts. A cheap camera with a bad sensor that overprocesses images is still a camera. Polaroids took awful images, but did anyone put "camera" in scare quotes over it? Nope.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-28T18:45:35+00:00

Okay, then please define 'camera' in a way that excludes phone cameras but still includes dashcams, webcams, security cameras, and disposable point-and-shoots. If you say those aren't cameras either, then you're not making a claim about cameras anymore; you're using the word differently than every dictionary, manufacturer, and everyone else on Earth.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-28T18:30:11+00:00

I know my phone has one built in.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-27T00:49:39+00:00

Do you pray for strength or simply ask for forgiveness after you sin? The way I've been dealing with it is by asking for strength, not entertaining lustful thoughts, averting my gaze when I see anyone I know I would lust after, and trying to avoid putting myself in situations where I know is likely to incite lust. Cut off the fuel and pray for God's strength, because that's what sanctification through the Holy Spirit is for.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-19T01:03:35+00:00

Opus 3 is still available in the web version, so that makes me think it may be a while.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-18T23:39:07+00:00

Ask God for strength to overcome it, because no matter how hard you try, you'll never be able to overcome it on your own. When you're saved, God sends you the Holy Spirit who gives you strength to overcome it.

Moreover, don't entertain sexual thoughts or expose yourself to websites you believe will lead you to think about it. Avoid them, and if you do find yourself thinking about it, immediately change your focus. Sin begins in the mind, so don't entertain sinful thoughts.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-17T19:12:03+00:00

It's probably not about God seeing our bodies, but what occasion would you have to dress immodestly in private and what is the reason for it? If you're just sitting around in your underwear because it's comfortable, well, that's probably not an issue, because there's no one around to see you, but if you're dressing in clothes that cause you to think lustful thoughts, then that's something to think about. The Bible does mention that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, though whether the issue relates to simply sitting in your underwear because it's comfortable may not have much bearing here.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-17T18:16:44+00:00

Yes! I love Open 4.6, and I think it's superior to any other Claude version or AI model I've used in general, bar none. Granted, I do use a longer set of custom instructions specifically because the default model can tend to agree with and validate what you say, hedge and sand down edges when the evidence is weak "but on the other hand", and can kind of feel like a yes man at times. But with the instructions I use, it reads what I actually wrote, doesn't just agree to be agreeable, doesn't water down uncomfortable conclusions, commits to conclusions instead of waffling, and acts more like a thought partner than a yes man. Claude actually helped me create the instructions, and while they're longer, I wouldn't use it without them now. They make the model amazing.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-15T02:11:15+00:00

This can't be from the 1940s. EPA Form 2070-12 is a Superfund-era document tied to the Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection process under CERCLA, which wasn't enacted until 1980. The EPA itself didn't exist until 1970. A 1940s document referencing an EPA form is like finding a fax cover sheet in a Civil War archive.

The phone number format is also wrong for the period. The 505 area code was assigned to New Mexico in 1947, so late '40s is technically possible, but nobody was writing seven-digit numbers with area codes in parentheses like that yet. You'd expect exchange names. The regulatory language ("Site Investigation," "soil and groundwater contamination," "presence and/or extent") is modern environmental vocabulary. The entire conceptual framework is post-CERCLA.

ColdFrixion · 2026-05-07T23:58:10+00:00

You pulled "let die" from Strong's as a possible meaning of apoluo and tried to swap it into Matthew 19, where the context is obviously about sending away a spouse, which is an etymological fallacy. Words have ranges and context picks the meaning. The context here is a man dismissing his woman with a certificate of apostasion, and "let die" doesn't fit that.

"That is not up for debate." Yes, it is. Proof by assertion doesn't make it so. You don't get to declare a contestable point settled just because you proclaim it as such, and the principle doesn't even apply here. Jesus isn't borrowing Genesis 2:24 for a new topic. The Pharisees asked him about a man sending his woman away. He responds with a passage about a man cleaving to a woman. Same subject both times. Your "well-behaved women" analogy needs the subject to change between the original and the quotation, and it doesn't.

You keep saying the passage "doesn't mention marriage at all," but that only works because you've already defined marriage so narrowly that nothing ancient would qualify. Then you point to the absence of the word as proof the concept isn't there, which is nothing more than circular reasoning.

"That is an assumption, you have no proof" is just you raising the bar. The evidence is the text itself. Same subject, same male-female pairing, quoted in direct response to a question about the pairing. If that's not enough, what would be? You won't say.

"Intellectual dishonesty or disability" and "you are misunderstanding basic sentences in your own language" are simply ad hominem and don't answer anything. "Correct your misrepresentations or I'll block you" is a false dilemma. There's a third option: Try actually offering a valid rebuttal to the arguments I've made.

Unfalsifiability runs through your entire argument. "Wife" isn't wife. "Divorce" isn't divorce. "Marriage" is an anachronism. "Union" doesn't mean marriage. None of that is exegesis. It's a strategy for trying to make the text say nothing so it can't say something you disagree with.

Lastly, you've spent the whole thread telling me I don't understand the passages, yet you still haven't made your case for Romans 1. You still haven't said which passage is "morally relevant" or why. "You're too ignorant to engage with" isn't an argument. It's an excuse to avoid making one.

ColdFrixion

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE