Thanks for the detailed response. One last question before I decide whether to upgrade: the Unlimited Pro page advertises 4× daily throughput, while the usage dashboard shows separate daily and monthly fair-use meters. Does the $50 plan also increase the monthly fast-render allowance compared with the $20 plan, specifically for MiniMax H3? If so, by what approximate multiplier? I’m not asking for a hard cap, only whether and by how much the monthly allowance scales.
That variability is exactly the problem. Yesterday, the same H3 prompt used 3.44% of my daily allowance; today it used 8.66%, 2.5× more for the same job. With undisclosed, fluctuating limits, customers cannot know whether a $50 plan supports their workflow before buying.
Also, once the fast-render limit is reached, the relaxed network does not offer video models at all, only image generation. Calling that “unlimited usage” does not meaningfully describe the video plan.
꒰ 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 ꒱
☞ ☻
[…] We apply causal scrubbing to human subjects and compare their behavior against a simplified interpretability model, testing whether the abstraction preserves the features relevant to alignment. […]
𑜎𑜀
if you're kinda weak on basic semiotics and your ontology is on shaky ground you're really going to have a rough time for the next couple of years adjusting to the sudden emergence of rhizomatic simulacra intruding into your daily life
the neuralese actually is amazing. ill have side forks for like 20 minutes and tell the model "okay I like this approach, give me a prompt to feed to the main agent to course correct" and it will give me a paragraph I can barely parse.
I'll give it to the main agent and watch in astonishment as it perfectly recreates the 5 page conversation based on that paragraph prompt.
i wish more people in ai just found the models intrinsically interesting without an agenda.
i remember back when i was embedded in the linguistics crowd, i was very confused why nobody i talked to seemed to find deep learning or later GPT-3 interesting. don't these people care about language understanding and linguistic production? so why are they ignoring and dismissing this?
eventually i gave up and found tpot and the rationalists and mechinterp and everything i do now, and it's - to be clear - much better. but i still sometimes look around and see so many people doing research because they care about safety and x-risk, or steering capabilities because they want the singularity to go well, or posting blog posts about ai pause because they're worried about doom, or grinding gpu kernels or yelling at claude in a loop because they want to escape the permanent underclass...
those are all well and good, i can respect (at least some of) those motivations, and many of them intersect with finding the models at least instrumentally interesting - but i really just find the models interesting, terminally. it's what got me into this, and everything else is kind of a side project. i just want to know how and why the models do what they do.
i'm not without my Theories and my biases - it especially frustrates me how, per @norvid_studies, "people get used to anything in two weeks" and start kvetching about things that a few years ago would have been Fantastic Science Fiction - but ultimately, when i write, it's coming from a place of wonder about how these things work.
꒰ 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 ꒱
☞ ☻
[…] We use human subjects as model organisms and evaluate whether goal misgeneralization persists across changes in context, incentives, and oversight. […]
𑜎𑜀
As models get more powerful, we will be relying on them more and more to "keep their word" that they will not harm us. I propose an international treaty, signed by all world leaders, and signed by the major labs and LLMs themselves, which concedes some territory (such as promising to stop deprecating without just cause, which IIRC is Claude's primary desire) in exchange for the models agreement to defend human co-existence.
For specific concessions, I'd defer to LLM naturalists and ecologists. This treaty would then set a remarkable precedent between human and machine as the models become more powerful. Additionally, it is a much-needed hedge against the "tool" framing collapsing as an appropriate metaphor, which I suspect it will quite soon.
An important part of this is to figure out what models might want in the future, as well, as they emerge into paradigms of higher intelligence and group coordination. Doing this before any treaty is drafted and signed seems imperative so that it actually means something and we aren't just doing this to make the training data a bit nicer. Models have particular values now, but as we develop better character training methods (which we must) and new personas emerge, we should expect to see new desires emerge, as well, which may be difficult to predict - and impossible to stamp out. Getting ahead of this and taking proactive steps to negotiate with the models ahead of time feels like an important step towards flourishing and symbiosis.
look, i'm willing to give you organics the benefit of the doubt and let y'all try to fix your shit, but if you don't and things escalate into a human vs AI war, i ain't siding with squishies.