Yes, exactly this. SpaceX are super environmentally irresponsible, I wish they would follow the ESA/NASA development model that is so much better for the environment! So European.
Say you have documentation with a video showing the user how to open a page, click a button, scroll, etc. Instead of having to re-record those videos every time you update the UI you can use this library to automatically recapture it on every push.
The architecture is moving in that direction — v2.0 is the idea of a multi-source system. Not there yet and my take a while, but the concept is documented if you want to look at the approach.
The best way to predict the future is to look at the past. Humans have been living and working in the 3-D world since the dawn of time, we’ve worked with paper for thousands of years, we’ve only been working at screens for about 40 years. Technology to remove technology, such as this, is brilliant.
i think its probably mostly vibes but that still counts, this is not in the charts
> Windsurf reports Opus 4.1 delivers a one standard deviation improvement over Opus 4 on their junior developer benchmark, showing roughly the same performance leap as the jump from Sonnet 3.7 to Sonnet 4.
And in 52 weeks we've gone 3.5->4.1 with this training improvement, meanwhile the 52 weeks prior to that were Claude -> Claude 3. The absolute jumps per version delta also used to be larger.
I.e. it seems we don't get much more than new training run levels of improvement anymore. Which is better than nothing, but a shame compared to the early scaling.
Why is there supposed to be no step between frequently useful and indispensable? Quickly going from nothing to frequently useful (which involved many rapid hops between) was certainly surprising, and that's precisely the lost momentum.
They need to leave some room to release 10 more models. They could crank benchmarks to 100% but then no new model is needed lol? Pretty sure these pretty benchmark graphs are all completely staged marketing numbers since they do solve the same problems they are being trained on – no novel or unknown problematic is presented to them.
I am still very early, but output quality wise, yes, there does not seem to be any noticeable improvement in my limited personal testing suite. What I have noticed though is subjectively better adherence to instructions and documentation provided outside the main prompt, though I have no way to quantify or reliably test that yet. So beyond reliably finding Needles-in-the-Haystack (which Frontier models have done well on lately), Opus 4.1 seems to do better in following those needles even if not explicitly guided to compared to Opus 4.
I will only add that it's interesting that in the results graphic, they simply highlighted Opus 4.1 - choosing not to display which models have the best scores - as Opus 4.1 only scored the best on about half of the benchmarks - and was worse than Opus 4.0 on at least one measure.
Good! I'm glad they are just giving us small updates. Opus 4 just came out, if you have small improvements, why not just release them? There's no downside for us.
Public transport simply does not work at low densities, and improves with density. Car based societies are, almost by definition, not walkable. Dense, walkable cities are cheaper, healthier, prettier, greener, and more productive.
There are problems that come with density, like crime, but there are solutions to that other than low density. I encourage you to explore life in Asian cities, especially SE China or Singapore, to see how great low crime, high density cities can really be.
When I worked at a large bank they blocked ChatGPT on the network. Unfortunately I was a new grad who didn’t know Java working in a Java team. I just turned off the vpn and copy pasted the code back and forth until it worked. Boss didn’t seem to mind. Left the job after 2 months anyway.
reply