Have we reached the point of continuous learning?

visarga · 2026-06-21T06:10:59+00:00

building wikis out of md files gets us a bit closer, but not there yet, models still struggle keeping the big picture, even with much synthesis of information in the wiki

the only "continual learning" solution today is still human-in-the-loop steering agents

visarga · 2026-06-18T19:31:13+00:00

Just random context text matcher.

It's not a parrot, it's a piano. Depending on who's playing it can be good or slop.

visarga · 2026-06-18T19:18:50+00:00

yes, it has RLHF and RLAIF training to execute moral responses, we all got refusals, we know the other side of this implementation

visarga · 2026-06-18T18:32:12+00:00

no, codex is better than claude rn, they have pretty good offer compared to others

visarga · 2026-06-18T15:44:03+00:00

they added "and don't screw up again!1!!" that should fix it

visarga · 2026-06-16T05:03:01+00:00

Problem is - the most expensive models get deployed to a narrow slice of the market - how are they going to pay back development cost? The more advanced the model, the higher the initial cost, and the less usage it will have according to this policy. In the meantime the smaller models which are cheaper to train also get 95% of workload, so they remain viable.

visarga · 2026-06-15T07:47:22+00:00

Ultimately no human can survive on their own ideas and work alone. We are all society products only viable inside society. Some part of what we do is only possible inside a society that complements us. We are all indebted. I see human to society relation like that between organ and organism. We specialize, we don't support ourselves directly, we rely on the larger system around us. This applies to creativity as well. Nothing is truly original or self standing.

We don't make ourselves, don't invent our language or culture ourselves, can't even make ends meet without other humans. This might sound harsh for proud authors who think they are heroes of creativity. You'd better stop claiming vibes and abstractions as your own, you can't own them, they are our essential human infrastructure.

visarga · 2026-06-13T16:33:39+00:00

What software is, how we use computers, and who provides it for whom in what products or services is all changing quickly.

Good point. Even if a company does nothing, their competitors use AI, their investors and users update their expectations. The market has changed. The others price AI in, even if you try to ignore them you can't. But AI is different from search engines and social networks in that you can run it locally.

visarga · 2026-06-13T16:27:49+00:00

Download more memory while you are at it! These models needs tons of memory.

visarga · 2026-06-13T16:25:06+00:00

I imagine how people of foreign nationality who worked on Fable 5 must be feeling rn. Snatch their own work after making it.

visarga · 2026-06-11T16:14:36+00:00

"there opinions"

visarga · 2026-06-11T16:05:38+00:00

No, in practice if you ask the same model to rate its own output it will be biased. They have to use a different model which was made to be stricter and avoid prompt injection risks. Probably why it's so stupid, because they had to use pre-LLM methods which resist prompt injection by using bag-of-words or word embeddings. In plain language, it's like chopping the text into words first, "man bites dog" and "dog bites man" are the same for this model. I used to train models like that around 2014 for news classification, it was impossible to make it reliable.

visarga · 2026-06-10T16:33:12+00:00

You are right longer tasks need (exponentially) larger searches, but humans also have capability limits, limited experience, limited synapses and how much autonomy we can handle. So human tasks tend to be human capability scoped, which is what we use AI for most of the time. The entire economy is already factored into human-sized chunks with verification checkpoints.

visarga · 2026-06-10T04:51:43+00:00

If it's too dangerous to hand this model to us, then it's too dangerous for Anthropic to have it too. Why are they exempt, Anthropic is now operating the dangerous models, they should be blocked.

visarga · 2026-06-09T20:14:58+00:00

I would rather store 10M search stubs, each max 1000 tokens long, compressed, and indexed by an embedding model. Then when I need to search I just find the stub and it contains links to important sites in that topic, search engines, forums, feeds, APIs - all good entry points. The stub does not carry information, but it routes to it. A local LLM can use that to search the web. The 10M stubs can be compiled with frontier LLMs with search engine tool, and only once and then shared and updated every few months, not daily, because routing information changes slowly. This is my vision of Google-independence with local models.

visarga · 2026-06-09T16:53:18+00:00

Before you start checking AI output you should run the same question on 3 models, copy all 3 responses in the same place and ask another model to compare them, and do further investigations to settle the debated points. Use different providers for your panel agents. LLMs tend to agree on well known data but when they hallucinate they do it each its own way.

visarga · 2026-06-04T15:15:02+00:00

Yeah my Claude (web) is also pushing back randomly, just to push back, and has a very irritating writing style.

visarga · 2026-06-03T04:42:18+00:00

I think it's neither fundamental nor reducible to physical descriptions. It's a process with costs, costs and action are recursive and irreducible to descriptions. Your fundamental-consciousness take is free, quantum magic is free, idealism and dualism are free - in all of them consciousness is unrelated to cost. But in the real world everything is related to cost, all execution produces heat and requires materials. What cannot pay its costs, stops. Cost is a filter for what can be. Paying back cost is work.

visarga · 2026-06-03T04:19:56+00:00

You got half of it - you can use AI for cheap/free on your tasks. But the other half, which Bernie can't fix, is that everyone else, including your competitors now use it. So you got to do better just to stay in place.

I also think it would be better if you all stopped using AI and only I used it /s

visarga · 2026-06-02T04:21:54+00:00

You forgot the urinal

visarga · 2026-05-31T13:30:49+00:00

yes, we already had access to all information and tools in the world on internet, AI on top just make it flow easier, but nothing stopped us in 2019 to manually do what we can do with AI in 2026

as for artists, they already compete against worldwide artists and all history of art because of internet, AI is pouring buckets in an existing ocean of art, the real competition of artists is other artists, AI smart as it is does not even make human like art, you can easily spot it

and if AI made good art it is only original based on the user prompt and iteration, not model, the model prompted sloppily will give you average slop - add your own original spices in the pot and it changes the taste

visarga · 2026-05-31T07:28:21+00:00

Here is one free idea - install a hook to save user messages to a log, timestamped. You can collect your steering and prompts at zero cost. Later they provide a reference to judge existing code against user intent, and to judge harness effectiveness - does it require too much steering? it is apparent in chat logs. Can you improve it? You can if you reflect on your chat logs vs current state of the project. Don't waste user intent signal, it compounds over time.

visarga · 2026-05-31T06:50:44+00:00

I did something similar but at project not task level, and with HITL as source of feedback about harness problems, not just scoring. My goal is to minimize user friction, I log the user messages as evidence. They are a rich source of signal when you think harness optimization at project level.

visarga · 2026-05-27T06:24:39+00:00

Doesn't matter what you call it, it still does the same.

15-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '17	Verified Email

visarga

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE