This is off topic.

Do people not feel like LLM speak (Claudisms) is infecting their own diction? Saying 'a new "shape" of LLM' sits so very poorly.

Thank you

Are you on the foundation research team for Thomson? (If so, hiya from B!) Why would you expect Thomson to be particularly good at spam clf? I figured your additional corpus was all news and legal?

I have no connection with Thomson Reuters other than as an end user of a GGUF of the LLM I mentioned. That said, from my personal experience with this specific LLM, it's a decent improvement over a "base" Qwen 3.6 35B A3B Q8, and it does a good job of analyzing and categorizing documents on relatively small resources. It'll run fine in llama-server in pure CPU only on a 64GB RAM system with plenty of room to spare, takes something like 47GB with RAM reserved in llama-server for cache and full context size.

I get where you're going, but the argument isn't quite right.

A LLM never has and, in their current architecture, never can/could experience suffering or real change of state.

The general and expected case for humans is that capacity. A human my indeed lose capacity, e.g. being braindead and in severe cases we do indeed say that they are not conscious or able to suffer (different argument: some would of course say that is suffering in and of itself)

> being braindead and in severe cases we do indeed say that they are not conscious or able to suffer

Sure, there are such cases. But in the general case, it seems to be that memory and ability to change specifically are not necessary and are not sufficient for consciousness, so we shouldn't judge machines on that basis

This is beautiful and I'm now itching to make a workbench (finally! that initial "how many sheets and what for what size" problem has been the mental blocker)

+1.0mm vote to adding metric please!

Glad ShopSpec helped get you over the hump and appreciate the feedback. I am building a tool that I find useful for myself and previously encountered a similar pattern to what you mention.

What's the problem with "eliminate deictic language" ?

It is clear, specific, and terse. It keeps both llm tokens down and human prose-reading to a minimum.

Thank you!

Christ in pijamas. TLAs should be a capitol offence. Even worse so, somehow, when undefined.

I absolutely LOVE Tailscale. but uhh. I think they shoulder exactly the same risk, right?

I like this. I thought to iterate on it a bit, for the folk who respond better to higher-tact phrasing:

"Thanks. I have access to ChatGPT as well. But I ask people for help when it fails. Your thoughts are smarter than GPT's, please provide those, next time."

Though, I'd like to be more succinct/terse.

I feel like you really need to mention BabyLM. For example you have:

> Directions we think are wide open ... Curriculum learning

BabyLM and offshoot published a pretty convincing body of work on exactly that (which suggests it's not particularly relevant to LM training).

As I read your page, I really felt like the brevity-thoroughness tradeoff went the wrong way.