-- Impressive jumps in the benchmarks which automatically begs the need for newer benchmarks but why?. I don't think benchmarks are serving any purpose at this point. We have learnt that transformers can learn any function and generalize over it pretty well. So if a new benchmark comes along - these companies will syntesize data for the new benchmark and just hack it?

-- It seems like (and I'd bet money on this) that they put a lot (and i mean a ton^^ton) of work in the data synthesis and engineering - a team of software engineers probably sat down for 6-12 months and just created new problems and the solutions, which probably surpassed the difficult of SWE benchmark. They also probably transformed the whole internet into a loose "How to" dataset. I can imagine parsing the internet through Opus4.6 and reverse-engineering the "How to" questions.

-- I am a bit confused by the language used in the book (aka huge system card)- Anthropic is pretending like they did not know how good the model was going to be?

-- lastly why are we going ahead with this??? like genuinely, what's the point? Opus4.6 feels like a good enough point where we should stop. People still get to keep their jobs and do it very very efficiently. Are they really trying to starve people out of their jobs?

▲

laweijfmvo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

to your last question, yes we should! the issue isn’t us losing our 50+ hour work week jobs, it’s that our current governments and societies seem fine with the notion that unless you’re working one or more of those jobs, you should starve and be homeless.

	▲	kypro 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This is a theory I can't support well beyond hypothesising about what a post-employment democracy might look like, but I strongly suspect democracy doesn't work in a world where voters neither hold any significant collective might and are not producing any significant wealth. Democracies work because people collectively have power, in previous centuries that was partly collective physical might, but in recent years it's more the economic power people collectively hold. In a world in which a handful of companies are generating all of the wealth incentives change and we should therefore question why a government would care about the unemployed masses over the interests of the companies providing all of the wealth? For example, what if the AI companies say, "don't tax us 95% of our profits, tax us 10% or we'll switch off all of our services for a few months and let everyone starve – also, if you do this we'll make you all wealthy beyond you're wildest dreams". What does a government in this situation actually do? Perhaps we'd hope that the government would be outraged and take ownership of the AI companies which threatened to strike against the government, but then you really just shift the problem... Once the government is generating the vast majority of = wealth in the society, why would they continue to care about your vote? You kind of create a new "oil curse", but instead of oil profits being the reason the government doesn't care about you, now it's the wealth generated by AI. At the moment, while it doesn't always seem this way, ultimately if a government does something stupid companies will stop investing in that nation, people will lose their jobs, the economy will begin to enter recession, and the government will probably have to pivot. But when private investment, job loses and economic consequences are no longer a constraining factor, governments can probably just do what they like without having to worry much about the consequences... I mean, I might be wrong, but it's something I don't hear people talking enough about when they talk about the plausibility of a post-employment UBI economy. I suspect it almost guarantees corruption and authoritarianism.