These differences are prominent even in the same harness (cursor) in my experience. Opus is wordy to the point of exhaustion, GPT is better, Grok is very direct.
I've been hearing this myth since ChatGPT came out - that the labs have superAI that they're just slowly trickling out as competition forces them to.
Everyone in silicon valley has a cousin who's supposedly seen Anthropic's new unreleased model that changes everything forever. I distinctly recall sitting in a work meeting where a coworker was insisting GPT4 was AGI that anthropic was too scared to release. It's amazing to me that this playbook is still working at least somewhat on folks.
I'm convinced a lot of the anti-open-weight model comments at this point are inorganic traffic - there's trillions in investor money riding on a world where these models aren't cheap commodities. Having actually used things like the recent GLM, Kimi, and Qwen I think any edge the labs have is marginal at most and actually prefer the open weight models in most day to day usage.
Anthropic's recent releases are wordy to the point of exhaustion. Every time I use opus recently I find myself wanting to yell "GET TO THE POINT" at a terminal, which is exacerbated by it being slow.
Why are you convinced of that? Pretty much every time I see statements like that online, I can find plenty of organic traffic supporting it, not everything is a bot.
I just wouldn't bias myself that way, most people haven't really used local models. This stuff is pretty much all subjective evaluation, there's plenty of reasons for people to favor certain models or disfavor others.
Not really. The US has widely legalized gambling of various forms (sports, prediction markets, etc) in recent years. I'd argue that even more so than nicotine there is zero benefit to gambling.
The UK is not proposing disallowing 16-17 year olds (or any children) from carrying smart phones on public transit, though, which makes the entire article fall apart.
The author leaps from a proposed ban on 15 year olds using tiktok to wholesale bans on smartphones.
The article spends a long time conflating actual proposed policy in the UK with things that aren't being proposed and sound much worse. I did some googling, the UK's gone a bit further than the US in proposing that < 16 year olds can't use social media with real age verification instead of current "I promise I'm over 13" approaches, curfews on social media specifically for 16-17 year olds that are opt-out, and smart phones must be put away at school.
No one's proposing banning teenagers from owning smart phones entirely. I would agree that not allowing 17 year old girls going out to have phones on trains would be bad policy, if that was actually a thing anyone was suggesting. It's unclear how any of the teens in the anecdote at the start of the story would be affected by the proposed legislation at all.
> It’s watching precisely why young adults need phones, the agency to use them, and the life skills to make their ways in the world with their phones in their pockets.
The link between creepy old men being called out and documented on a train and whether or not 14 year olds should be spending 8+ hours a day scrolling tiktok is unclear to the point of feeling like I'm missing something in the article. I guess the idea is that teens are being punished? And we should be holding our leaders accountable instead of restricting the teens? The counter argument to this would be "holding our leaders accountable" looks a lot like "passing regulations to keep children from being harmed by digital nicotine"
> Many other people, observing our current policy context, have also called out how smartphone and social media bans for young adults (and we are talking about that particular group here, not toddlers and primary schoolers) risk swaddling them in cotton wool and then releasing them into the world, without critical adulting skills, on the day they hit a magic birthday
This is the same reason I think we should give 13 year olds a couple of cigarettes a week, just enough for them to still feel sick from the nicotine and start to figure out how to integrate into adult society.
We've long accepted that certain activities carry enough harm that people under a certain age lack the development for it to be fair to expect them to engage with it in a healthy manner. Does it deny 14 year olds some agency that we don't allow them to ride motorcycles? Yes. Is it sound policy? I think so. We have plenty of evidence for real harms in teenagers with regards to social media, a fact that took me a long time to accept while I worked in the industry, but is plainly obvious in the data and studies done on it over the past decade.
It's actually quite hard to say, as there are no official figures on arrests specifically for social media posts in either country. And lot of the specific cases that people point to in the UK (e.g. Lucy Connolly) have parallels in the US:
(The figures that the American right give for "arrests for social media posts" in the UK are actually figures from certain police forces for arrests under various pieces of online communication legislation, many of which have nothing to do with social media.)
A guy was arrested for a joke he posted on social media about Charlie Kirk. He spent some time in jail but ended up winning a lawsuit. So the answer isn't exactly 0 in the US
