From the article:

> All of the lab work is performed by human scientists.

That doesn't mean the humans aren't meat puppets.

I think the odds of a human accidentally creating a novel virus or bioweapon at the behest of a rouge AI are pretty small to be honest. That's a lot of manual labor to go "oops I didn't realize what this was!"

In the short term you're probably right. But after a couple of years, complacency will take over and more and more decision making will get ofloaded. I don't think it's out of the question before 2030.

I just realized how great it is that this term became great again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_Puppets

Are we anything else? Our complete behavior is shaped by our upbringing, media exposure, education. "Do we even have free will?"

No, but it also doesn’t make any difference, I think.

Not that I agree with the comment you're replying to - but I find this response funny, when just today there was a link on the front page about the US military bombing a school because of AI output

That you clearly only read the headline of

And what brings you to this very wrong impression?

Tesla isn't using a general purpose model, they're using many highly-specialized models for a more deterministic system than "hey chat drive this car for me"

“Yes they solved one of the 7 most famous unsolved problems in math today but they only did the easiest version!”

At the current rate (if they keep burning tokens on it, which maybe they won’t given the backlash) RH will be proven within a year and there will be some other thing that means it’s not actually that impressive…

I keep thinking that surely I missed the 3rd video in the series but no, 2 months later we are still waiting for the conclusion. I'm sure it'll be worth the wait though.

He made a 'trilogy' about probability distributions that is still missing its third video five years later. Let's hope it doesn't turn out the same!

Even on the $20 or $100 subscription I would be surprised if deepseek was still cheaper than OpenAI or Anthropic because the subscription usage quota is subsidized about 10x compared to API costs. $200 sub was the “best deal” but it’s paused for new signups right now.

I don't think I spend more than $20 USD on DeepSeek though?

I'm happy to spend more for a better product, but mostly I just want to avoid quotas, since it turns me into an addict, feeling like I have to be ensuring the bots are active.

I like that with DeepSeek's API pricing that I can not sure it for 2w, and not feel like I've missed out. 2w is a long time, but I only use it for personal stuff, and I often go 1-2w without using it due to other commitments.

That’s great, I hate the opaqueness around subscription rates but at least it will show up in some way there too

Do you have a source on the first note? I switched away from Claude around July because of how bad the usage limits were, and Codex gave me easily double the amount of usage per task completed. Would be interested to see if that's no longer the case.

Added link in edit. OMP maintainer has several claude and codex subs and he's been tracking usage since around July.

I haven't been tracking, but this roughly matches my experience with codex 20x and claude 20x subs. Claude subscription now lasts me 3-3.5 days on average. Codex is 2-2.5 days. This is work on same projects, with similarly sized tasks.

To make matters worse, I've merged a lot more code produced by fable than sol/astra.

Altman said it was launching last week on twitter, but they pushed it back to this week

The only two benchmarks shared between the Opus 5.5 and Sol 6 launch seem to be frontier code and automation bench, looks like Sol wins on automation bench (same performance for half the cost) and Opus 5.5 wins on frontier code (2-5% better scores across the board for same cost)

Clickbait title, they fired contractors for using AI to label data, which defeats the purpose of labeling data in this case.

It's not a clickbait title? Click bait has a very different meaning. The click bait title would be something like, "Open AI mysteriously fired these workers, find out why"

This title says why. The article then goes on to explain why that's a problem. Pretty straightforward.

Why exactly it is clickbaity? It makes perfect sense to me, I understand title as: people told not use AI fired for using AI - without any need for additional context. Mechanical Turk was shut down for exactly same reason, it was always a race to the bottom and using LLMs was cheaper than even third world gig workers. Verifying if task were done by humans is probably harder than doing them in the first place.

Training is far more broad than labeling

"People training OAI AI" has a colloquial meaning of "People working at OAI"

So the headline is built to imply:

"People who work for OAI got fired for using AI to do their job"

When a non-clickbait headline would be

"3rd party workers contracted to distill their human knowledge fired for using AI instead"

Not nearly as "clicky"

Just make it "contractors training..." And then it's fine?

As I see it, the distinction is between the work of designing and managing the training process, and the work of providing human training data. It's generally considered a good idea to automate the former, but there's a conceptual (information theoretical) issue with automating the latter. I don't know if it makes things more fair, but it's not quite a contractor vs FTE issue.

Some people would die of dehydration if they read the headline "H2O is a chemical that often kills people".

Really? It’s clickbait because it paints OpenAI as hypocritical: “look they’re marketing AI as valuable, and they won’t even let their own people use it”. When in fact the job description is to not use AI.

I did not get the hypocritical implication from the title and I don't think it's necessarily implied.

This is an odd take. There are many kinds of problems that must be solved using a different system than the first system that got the answer to ensure

1. That system isn't broken in a difficult to tell way.

2. The systems implementation is incorrect.

3. That the theory that particular implementation uses isn't incorrect.

There is nothing hypocritical at all about that.

Please reread. I am not making the claim that OpenAI is hypocritical.

I am making the claim that the article headline is clickbait because it paints OpenAI as hypocritical for firing workers for using AI to do their job, which is a mischaracterization because the whole job is to give human input.

Oh, sorry, I read it wrong.

> they fired contractors for using AI to label data

Is your objection to the word “train” in headline? Otherwise, you’re just restating the headline while calling it clickbait (which, btw, it’s not, perhaps you meant to say it is misleading, which is a different thing.)

labeling is more specific than training, and changes the implied situation.

Its the same difference between "I was arrested for having liquid in my car while driving" and "I was arrested for holding an open bottle of whiskey while driving"

Yeah, that's a pretty big difference. The people "training" OpenAI models are getting paid like pro football players, have PhDs in the field, and are the superstars of the company. The people "labeling" data are low level contractors that get paid basically nothing to read chat responses and grade them, anyone who can type can do it.

I don't know if it's deliberately misleading or if the journalist doesn't understand the difference, but the output is functionally the same.

So by using AI to label datasets, the data used to train the AI was generated by AI… and we arrive at the title of the article