[solenoid0937]

I wouldn't call correcting misinformation and FUD "peddling hype" or "shilling" but I suppose we are in a post-truth world, where if you push back against the anti-AI emotions and vibes with grounded facts, you must be a shill.

Anyways, please take your discourse of calling people you disagree with "shills" back to Reddit. I'd much rather engage with someone debating the merits of an argument.

[arkadiytehgraet]

If you are an LLM-hype peddler, you really should not be offended at being called out. Also, this is the merit you are ostensibly looking for — since you are a shill, everyone should know this first before taking your words seriously.

You should also check your LLM prompt for HN comments, because the original comment you replied to was not anti-AI, and, in fact, very much pro-AI. The only criticism it had was about model being degraded, so they could not go as hard at AI-assisted development anymore as they used to before. I guess it's a bit difficult for LLMs to spot the difference and make proper conclusion for now.

Also even if taking you seriously — how does writing "no, model performance is not degraded because I say so" serve as correcting misinformation? It only does if you are shilling for Anthropic (which you do), otherwise it's just hot air.

[solenoid0937]

Not offended at all, but just ranting about how someone is a shill instead of responding to the substance of their argument is simply not the kind of discussion we have on HN. Read the guidelines.

> "no, model performance is not degraded because I say so" serve as correcting misinformation?

Because zero evidence has been provided other than feelings. That is not evidence of degradation, and we know they don't serve quants.

[arkadiytehgraet]

You are an Anthropic shill, and this is an explicit marker that needs to be added to all of your comments, so that all information you provide can be adjusted for that bias. But I do understand why you ignore this point since it devalues all your comments (as it should), and instead cling to "ranting how someone is a shill bla-bla-bla".

Those people, unlike you, are actually using AI in development. And it is not a singular person who reports their frustration with the model being degraded after a certain period of time, so the anecdata does gradually become data. Your attempts at gaslighting are weak, you should really ask your bosses for a new guidebook on how to deal with reports of models performing at worse levels than before. Just writing "because I say so" is not cutting it.

> "we know they don't serve quants"

How do you know that unless you are working at Antrhopic? Yet another evidence of you being an Anthropic shill.

[solenoid0937]

You have no substantive arguments other than calling people you disagree with shills.

> so the anecdata does gradually become data.

No, it does not. Countless social phenomena demonstrate how factually incorrect misconceptions spread rapidly. Frequency illusion is real and contagious.

> How do you know that [they are not serving quants]

Lots of ways to tell, if you weren't busy calling people shills.

First, Anthropic and OpenAI have both stated they don't serve quants. Weak protection, but it's there.

Second, no one has shown an A/B or eval proving a regression.

Third, and most importantly, the actual output measurably changes. Quants have a lower latency, higher TPS, and different token distribution. Despite having access to this data, no one has any evidence proving a quant has been served.

> You are an Anthropic shill

I'd explain the reasons I favor Anthropic over the others, but you'd just go back to yelling "shill" instead of engaging in a real conversation. That said, I am a fan of GDM as well, and think Gemini is better than Anthropic for everything other than code.

I've seen nothing resembling sane, reasoned thought from you in this thread. Just anger.

You haven't substantively debated a single point, it's like "shill" is the only word in your vocabulary. Again, this isn't Reddit.

[arkadiytehgraet]

Nothing to do with disagreement, I only call "Anthropic shills" people who are explicitly and shamelessly shilling for Anthropic. You still ignore the point that shilling adds bias to all your comments, so other readers have to actively keep it in mind to adjust for it. Stating that you are an Anthropic shill helps everyone around. And somehow you managed to be peddling LLM-hype shit so hard, that you are the only one called out on that by me.

> No, it does not.

Yes, it does, it is literally the definition of data - collection of points, observations, anything really. Try gaslighting harder, Anthropic shill. As I said, ask for better playbook on how to deal with people actually experiencing degradation before replying again.

> First, Anthropic and OpenAI have both stated they don't serve quants.

What's the point of stating this other than trying to pad your baseless "proof"? LLM-level argument.

> Second, there have not been evals showing a real regression test proving that a quant was served

This is how I know you have no idea what you are talking about and resort to LLMs for all your argumentation. Benchmarks are gamed so hard that even quantized models would achieve on them non-quantized level reliably. Moreover, benchmarks (that matter) are not run continuously all the time.

> Third, and most importantly, the actual output measurably changes. Quants have a lower latency, higher TPS, and different token distribution. Despite having access to this data, no one has any evidence proving a quant has been served.

You really are an LLM. What do you think different token distribution means? It literally means different, arguably worse performance in coding tasks. The evidence is in your face, but you have to keep it straight, since you are an Anthropic shill. You wrote yourself an argument why the models ARE quantized over time and did not even understand it. Makes sense, since you are paid to not understand stuff but peddle LLM-hype for Anthropic instead.

> I'd explain the reasons I favor Anthropic over the others

It is perfectly visible why you favor Anthropic, because you are an Anthropic shill and they pay you your salary, duh.

> real conversation

This is the type of conversation everyone should have whenever they read something written by an Antrhopic shill. You are actively poisoning this forum by astroturfing for Antrhopic, so we should take measures against it.

> You haven't substantively debated a single point

Obviously an Anthtropic shill would ignore everything of substance I wrote and instead focus on being called out. Fortunately, it is not you who I have to convince of anything, since your very well-being relies on getting salary from Anthropic peddling LLM-hype on HN and elsewhere, so you are physically incapable of understanding pretty much anything that contradicts your talking points.

[solenoid0937]

> Yes, it does, it is literally the definition of data

No, feelings are not reliable data when frequency bias and misinformation exist. There is a reason most experiments isolate out bias as much as possible.

> Moreover, benchmarks (that matter) are not run continuously all the time.

So there's no data?

> What do you think different token distribution means?

You clearly did not understand anything I said. Stated simply: If you were being served a quant, you'd be able to tell by looking at the token distribution, latency, and TPS. You don't need to trust the labs' word for it.

> they pay you your salary, duh.

In fact, I get paid by a FAANG, though I do use Anthropic products heavily. Further, I don't really need money, I have more than enough. So much for reading my history.

> You are actively poisoning this forum

Your degenerate discussion - calling people shills instead of engaging with the argument, insulting them when your arguments are disproven, your inability to hold a rational debate that's not angry and emotionally charged - that is what is poisoning this forum.

Frankly, if you react this angrily and emotionally to a simple rational premise (that frequency bias leads to the perception of models being worse than them actually being worse), you're ngmi unless you're already independently wealthy.

I would recommend a therapist, it helped me when I had similar behavioral issues. (Claude is a great therapist, by the way ;)