| |
| ▲ | Rapzid 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or rather it's being.. Unsubstantiated. The Nerf conspiracy isn't that there have been a few harness and platform bugs leading to performance regressions, but that OpenAI/Anthropic have maliciously and unethically degraded their model performance post release to shed load and save money. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah it's just inconceivable that companies whose entire business model started by engaging in wholesale for-profit theft and abuse of intellectual property would ever be so unethical as to try to lower their costs, especially just prior to an IPO. | | |
| ▲ | Rapzid an hour ago | parent [-] | | Again, these things are constantly measured. They sell HEAPS through their API access to enterprise consumers that expect a model to not be nerfed after it's released. And you bet many of those enterprises, some spending many millions each month, are measuring this shit. So this is a case of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. And even though it's super straight forward to collect the evidence, there seems to be zero substantiating the vibe bro conspiracy theories. | | |
| ▲ | mrandish 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > They sell HEAPS through their API access The claim is that they nerf subscription accounts not API. | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you're going to try to argue that companies doing things, completely legal mind you, to increase their profit margins is a conspiracy theory then you're not debating in good faith. Let alone when we're speaking of a subset of companies that were fundamentally built on wholesale unethical behavior carried out for profit. Let alone when we're speaking of companies who are all racing to IPO where short term results matter more than just about anything. Another issue is also that the risk here is probably literally zero. Any evidence in support of such could easily be dismissed, with completely plausible deniability, as a short-lived technical glitch as opposed to intentional behavior. | | |
| ▲ | Rapzid 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > an explanation for an event or situation that claims a secret, powerful group is responsible for a hidden plot, rejecting the standard or official account I'm sorry, but yeah. The official account is a harness regression and some platform bugs. Where is the evidence they are underhandedly and unethically regressing their models to shed load and reduce costs? This is the conspiracy theory running rampant through the vibe boroughs; that they are bait-and-switching on model capabilities then "nerfing" them to save money and shed load. Where is the evidence?! |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | stackghost an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | To me that sounds exactly on-brand for Big Tech in general and Sam Altman in particular. | | |
| ▲ | jackmott42 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | No one here has suggested that the conspiracy theory is stupid (But I will, it is stupid), we are pointing out that the people actually measuring model performance have not found the nerfing before launch conspiracy to be true. in short, yall dumb, shut up. | | |
| ▲ | stackghost 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think the real story is just how easily people believe that purported conspiracy theory. It speaks to how little trust there is in these AI companies, and in Big Tech in general, that this "conspiracy" theory is perfectly plausible to lots of people > in short, yall dumb, shut up. no u |
|
|
|
|
