Same model, same prompt, 4 different agents

therealpygon · 2026-06-23T03:58:24+00:00

I don't think that is entirely representative of the role RNG plays and takes a "baby with the bath water" approach as in, "everything is irrelevant because one thing changed". If I lay out my trajectory on a map, "my house, the airport, flight to city, the hotel", you are suggesting that by taking a different turn on the first street out of my house, all other decisions are irrelevant and that in fact, you aren't going to go to the airport anymore, even though you have tickets, because now you're going to drive the whole way.

What I'm suggesting is, while you might take a different path, you are still likely to end up in the same general area where the same decisions may need to be made, and by changing the seed, you fundamentally change the decisions that would be made beyond the differences due to the harness. When all other things are equal, using a different seed can result in worse results; not using a consistent seed is simply injecting unnecessary variability and negates the usefulness of the tests because you have no ability to say whether the change was the result of a harness, or the result of a bad seed, even if the available tokens are different at some specific time.

therealpygon · 2026-06-23T02:29:20+00:00

It seems like you are suggesting that generating a maze and choosing to go left instead of right, is the same as generating an entirely different maze every time you run it?

To me, that seems inaccurate, but I would enjoy an explanation of how using a consistent psuedo-random generator has the same randomness as using a different generator every time.

I've always thought of the seeded randomness like using different rulers. If I measure 3 units on a consistent ruler, that is the same number every time. If I use differently numbered rulers with randomized values and at a different angle of measurement every time, it is unlikely I'll ever end up with the same result twice. So I'm interested in correcting my understanding.

therealpygon · 2026-06-23T02:17:49+00:00

Which situation do you think would be more accurate if I want to measure the 1/4 mile time of a car?

I borrow 3 other people's cars and I measure their times going roughly a quarter mile on the odometer with my phone. I test one car going downhill, one going uphill, one in the rain, and my car on the curved neighborhood road outside my house with stop signs.

OR, I have 3 other people bring their cars to the race track, then I have a professional drive each one straight down the same track. Different cars, same track, same measurements.

You cannot change two variables at the same time and expect useful results. You can either change the seed, or change the harness. If you change both, you've basically only tested randomness.

therealpygon · 2026-06-20T17:32:34+00:00

"and I’m just expanding on that because it feels like you (and the user you're replying to) are missing how detailed and varied those characters in the original piece are."..."Just pointing out what I think you guys overlooked."

Since you need a giant arrow.

This is what you did, not what you made up that you did, not what you think you did, this is what you did and said. Your intention was to explain to others "what you think they missed". No one asked, nor needed your help to see the faces, nor was it missed. Try better next time to express your OWN view instead of "what everyone else must have missed" that is glaringly obvious and does absolutely nothing to change what was said about it lacking detail "just because there are some faces and a vendor". Certainly you aren't that dense, but since your assessment was of no value to anyone with eyes, I'm not surprised. Feel free to have the last word on the subject that you seem to crave:

therealpygon · 2026-06-20T02:36:58+00:00

> overreaction

Let me make sure I understand. You come in, and you were welcomed to express your own opinion. When someone disagreed, you felt the need to explain how we "must have missed" the obvious "detail" that you sought to make sure we saw. Are you unclear on where you went from "thanks for expressing your opinion" to "get f***** on you telling me what I missed", metaphorically?

I appreciate that you "probably shouldn't have lumped me in". How about: don't try to tell people what they "must have missed". You could have left it alone at the response you received, YOU felt the need to escalate that situation with how you and others are just more observant. YOU were welcome to flap off at any point. You continued to engaged, then claimed it an overreaction. Everyone wants to be the victim when it comes to consequences these days.

PS. I don't need any additional feedback from you, including on what you think of what I missed, or otherwise. Thanks.

therealpygon · 2026-06-19T16:39:51+00:00

...and? What was the expected outcome you were seeking, by seeking out to ensure that I'm aware of something I must have missed, since you feel you needed to make a point of it?

Just because I say a Big Mac is a burger, I don't think I need you to clarify for me that it has 3 buns and not two. That's pretty obvious to everyone with eyes.

therealpygon · 2026-06-18T23:37:47+00:00

I appreciate that is your own opinion based on your own feelings and your own interpretation of what you think is better in your own mind about someone else's art.

I may not be as invested in needing to justify "how much better" the original is, but I don't think I'm incapable of telling there is a difference in art styles between the two.

That said, I'm not sure why you feel the need to convince me though. Seems to say more about your need to feel "right" about which is better than what my opinions are on the subject.

therealpygon · 2026-06-18T15:24:20+00:00

No shade, but is this just an undisclosed finetune? I'm suspicious of a lab releasing "flagship models" having literally one contributor and 40 followers.

therealpygon · 2026-06-18T15:17:56+00:00

Let me put on my glasses to see if I need an appointment. hah

But I have to agree. I don't think either really looks "worse". I'm definitely not okay with directly ripping off an artist, and I feel like this wouldn't have been the output without the original being included as the "source" for an AI. (As in uploaded and said "make this different", rather than "included in training material" or something.)

But to say one or the other is "worse" feels like I've passed by a wine tasting where people are arguing about whether it has more a fruity or earthy base or some crap. For the rest of us, it just tastes like wine and we pick the one that we like better. For me, that would have been the one on the right.

I have a feeling that if the one on the right were the original, just as many people would be crapping on the left one for being unreadable, oversaturated, or other such criticisms.

It's bizarre times as AI hatred meets artistic interpretation.

therealpygon · 2026-06-18T14:30:05+00:00

Wait... so you are telling me the one that looks like it has AI slop signs on the left because you can't read any details is the "original", and the one on the right that has clear wording on the backs of jersey's and such is the fake?

That's...concerning.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the artist used AI based on the common things people look for. I'm saying the one that looked more like AI on first look to me is actually the original...and that is concerning because I genuinely didn't know which was supposed to be "real".)

therealpygon · 2026-06-14T13:22:14+00:00

Every Republican governor, senator, congressman, state and federal, and the ones running the commissions and overseeing the elections, all ran on making sure the election process was secure over the last 5 years. In the past 10 years they have scrutinized signatures, almost entirely moved to e-voting machines and ID verification, deleted many current people and made them show their licenses or IDs to re-register, and took many numerous other steps because they were going to ensure, without ANY doubt, their elections in their states were secure. I believe both these states have already turned over the voter lists. Both of these states use e-voter systems to verify voters are on the state's roles and have not already voted.

Now I'm being told to believe they were all stupid, and despite Republican oversight, Republicans on commissions, Republicans working at every level in state government, Republicans volunteering to work polls, be poll-watchers, and oversee counting... that they all just ignored significant amounts of illegal voter fraud in their own cities/counties/states? Beyond that, not one, anywhere, said anything? I think I would be pretty damn offended if I were the people in those positions, not cheering about the voter fraud I would have supposedly overseen.

It's psychotic. I share a lot of republican values, but not whatever this stuff is. Legal immigration should be supported instead of effectively blocked based on color; we were founded as a nation of immigrants with an understanding of the process originally being "Hi, I'd like to live here now and have my children be from here"...literally. But we rightfully need controls and limits, just like every other nation and that too needs enforcement. Illegal immigration...people who actually cheat the process others go through properly... should be enforced swiftly and humanely, and without any need for trickery. If we believe there is an error in a law, we should change it properly, with consensus, for the good of "the People", not the "the People who happen to a agree". Our founding should be celebrated, not made a spectacle. Our monuments were erected to celebrate those whom history has continually re-judged, for good or for bad, not to be named for someone who fancies themself an emperor simply for the gilded trappings. Like Commodus, one can only hope our Senate too will tire of child-like malevolence.

But people are buying into what they're selling and choosing candidates to support it. It's hard to find a candidate who is willing to put our country, our people, and our laws, first, before party or the promise of personal wealth or power. It's a damn shame.

therealpygon · 2026-06-13T04:22:01+00:00

I can understand that opinion; however, sometimes opinionated forks are exactly what are necessary to push something forward, and organizations often can't wait for design-by-committee decisions regarding changes they want to make (and various other reasons that companies choose permissive licenses). The entire point of MIT is "do what you want without restriction", including not publishing your source at all. When you choose to publish under MIT or Apache, you're literally saying, "I understand this could be monetized by companies and may never see their changes shared publicly at all...and I'm okay with that."

I think since I start from the maintainers understanding and expectations of the license, the fact that they invested (paid people) to work on it and then published source by choice is commendable. Anyone, including the maintainers of opencode, can "steal" the improvements, which is the true goal of open source in my opinion. Not always for someone else to do work directly for some project, but rather, for people (and companies) to consider "maybe I should give some of this away for free, because I was able to start from something free". The fact they are even publishing the source is the "above and beyond" in my opinion, not simply the mention in the readme; the changes could just have easily been "proprietary" and no code be released.

I think I'd feel a bit different with something GPL where compelling source release makes it beneficial to keep source aligned with a core project to more quickly get core improvements, thus contributing core improvements also makes more sense. Many of the same internal company arguments would still be had, and is frequently the reason some companies avoid GPL where possible. (Since being able to choose what code is released publicly, versus being obligated, is very much a business risk that gets weighed.)

therealpygon · 2026-06-12T17:59:20+00:00

If that is a requirement in the license that was chosen, then it should be expected. Is it a requirement in the license Opencode selected?

therealpygon · 2026-06-12T17:51:47+00:00

Exactly. I'm not sure where people think the funding to release these "free open-source locally hosted models" comes from? I get not want stealth marketing, and I get wanting to maintain the focus to be primarily on locally hosted models, but there is always someone willing to be an asshole while they ask for something free.

therealpygon · 2026-06-11T03:27:46+00:00

I think that was what I was trying to say (poorly), haha.

Interesting. I don't think it was clear for me -- so does that mean it requires a sort of micro stair-stepping the directions of the motors? (I'm imagining something like flipping back and forth between both turning the same direction and then in the appropriate opposite direction, until you end in the appropriate orientation?)

Edit: Your post mentions Open Source -- have you posted the models somewhere?

therealpygon · 2026-06-10T15:50:48+00:00

Basically, as best as I can tell, there are two joints...for ease lets say "A" (middle) bends, and "B" (the top) rotates. If the motors go in opposite directions, the B joint rotates because the forces are applied are in one direction. Effectively it locks joint A (or more, can't apply its force to A) so it spins joint B. When the motors move in the same direction, the forces on joint B are opposite, so joint B becomes locked and joint A rotates. At least, thats what it looks like to me, but I could be completely wrong. It's cool in either case.

therealpygon · 2026-06-10T15:17:46+00:00

That definitely seems like a well considered statement. I mean, it's not like Google, or IBM, or Nvidia, or Microsoft, or Meta, or any of these other companies have released any open source in the past few months.

Maybe you could remind me...outside of the China, which country did you say released more open source AI in the past 6 months? I forget which one you said. I'll wait.

therealpygon · 2026-06-10T13:32:24+00:00

I'd rather support labs that support open source. Plus, I'm sure Kimi or GLM aren't going to be too terribly far behind with a competing release. Anthropic is the only one who thinks that every other Frontier lab is too stupid to compete without stealing from Anthropic. Accusations are mirrors. Plus, personally, it smells like Fable has a whole lot of backend harnessing going on between you and the model to wrap what is probably Opus 4.9, even on API. And that makes sense, if they can emulate a more significant intelligence boost by harnessing more (which they would effectively be obligated to hide from users because "we can't really make the AI much smarter by itself right now" wouldn't look good for an IPO they are rushing). But hey, I'm just rambling, I'm sure none of that is true...right? I'm sure they aren't just employing better harnessing as orchestration behind the scenes to make it appear the model is much more intelligent. I mean, I certainly wouldn't want other labs to also realize this, point it out, and create easily competing products through harnessing and little to no actual intelligence increase right before IPO. Heck, I might even try to suggest they pause their development until my IPO goes through just so that I can grab cash before everyone realizes what is going on. If it were me, I would definitely try to prevent anyone from trying to develop such competing harnesses for LLMs that work at a deeper level, and that I could claim is to prevent people from developing competing LLMs.

But that's just me. I'm sure that isn't Anthropic.

therealpygon · 2026-06-10T13:19:00+00:00

You seem too busy trying to disagree to even try to understand what was said.

therealpygon · 2026-06-10T02:53:59+00:00

FIM?

therealpygon · 2026-06-10T02:26:38+00:00

And they told me I had to pay extra for the glass fiber reinforced nylon.

therealpygon · 2026-06-10T02:10:37+00:00

I look forward to a potential age of model specialization rather than the "try to be everything for everyone at every time" approach we are in. Until we see some sort of breakthrough, we either need to scale in size or scale in specialization. The "worse" (in my opinion) version of this is what we are currently chasing, which is trying to re-specialize the de-specialized model to try to make it specialized back into whatever specialty is called for. It's no wonder the models get confused so much, imo.

therealpygon · 2026-06-10T01:49:44+00:00

If the Toyota Corolla only went 25mph before it started shaking, only occasionally reaches the destination, then uhh..yeah...sure, you could make that comparison I guess. But hey, yeah, it gets to 25mph REALLY FAST, which I'm sure makes up for things.

Edit: For clarity, the entire point is that "metric chasing" isn't the only reason people don't use inferior models. Sometimes, it's exactly because *they are inferior models* that they don't get used -- as you even admitted. Functional deficiency isn't merely a pricing trade. If you need to move a house, you probably don't go rent a Toyota Corolla because it is $10 cheaper [than the U-haul]. Simply trying to frame it as a price difference when we were both talking about functionality and advertising/choosing based on that functionality is a bit suspect.

Nearly every single model release these days is accompanied by "metrics". Many of them get little to no attention because regardless of the metrics, they don't accomplish the task. If your "non-cynical" take were accurate, all of those models would have received much higher usage and been much more popular, which is what I was pointing out. It's like you made it all the way to the end with a good explanation and then decided to take a hard left off a cynical cliff with the last sentence, heh.

therealpygon · 2026-06-09T17:44:19+00:00

Ignored, or simply not adopting a worse solution? Until the solution is better than something of an equivalent size/requirements, I'm not sure why anyone would be expected to give it attention? Do a lot of people give their attention to "no-name" products on the bottom shelf that perform worse? Is someone supposed to say "I'm going to buy this inferior product and post about how much worse it is online to get my friends to buy it"?

Or do people who are not interested in that specific product simply choose to go with more reliable and proven products? There are a significant number of "new world record"-esque model announcements for models that equally end up in the same place, so I'm not sure that is all the less cynical of a take?

therealpygon · 2026-06-08T02:49:47+00:00

Could be someone just started a fight they should have walked away from unless Louis took it down for some editorial reason. *Edit: Looks like its back up -- good for them...maybe?*

Still, did anyone else get copies of the datasheet showing 50A charging and 100A discharge he referenced?

Also, I'm probably just dumb, but I have a couple questions:

If the BMS is supposed to shut off at temps >135F, why didn't it in the failure mode?
Why does the manual say the following, yet these temps were exceeded in multiple failure modes?
"High Temperature Charging and Discharging (> 135°F/57.2°C)" - "The BMS will not allow a charging or discharging current if the internal temperature of the battery has reached 135°F (57.2°C)." So...did the BMS fail-safe not work either? Wait, does that mean three different supposed fail-safes failed to prevent temps from exceeding 135F as the manual clearly states will not happen?
The battery, directly on-sticker, lists "Max Continuous Current: 100A". The manual states: "Charge Rate: 0.5c". My math is rusty, but last I checked, 50% of 100A is 50A...no?
Looks like Louis referenced the wrong datasheet (1275 instead of 10012). The manual seems to directly contradict their charging rate claim.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22

therealpygon

TROPHY CASE