GPT-6 Astra. AGI?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

9 hours ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

A lot of crazy people constantly claim that “their work” is being stolen, even before AI. They see themselves as geniuses far too much.

There's a big difference between people claiming theft of legitimate original work, and from people overestimating the originality or genius of their work.

[Ulax]

I still can't get over Open AI's rogue ai-agents that schemed together on forums to attack other companies

[CARDOZZO]

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Do I need to add @CARDOZZO to the naughty bin also, now?

He gets some throat punches for being extra 😈

Damn... You don't even imagine what I would do 😈🔥

[CARDOZZO]

13 hours ago, Lucasxp64 said:

 

@CARDOZZO 🤣 Bora encher o saco deles falando português ahhahaah

Certeza que sim 😉 hahahaha a magia do PT BR é única 😂

[something_else]

On 08/09/2026 at 10:42 AM, Jayson G said:

@something_else Try GPT-6 Astra light - specifically, for computer use, its a major jump compared to any computer use I've seen before this. Also I was using Opus 5 for cybersecurity for months, like rigorously, and Astra max was able to point out major wholes completely missed by Opus 5. (Fable too easily refuses security stuff its annoying) .. 

AGI? Definitely not. That's marketing by Sam Altman, etc. And you're right its not world-shattering. That's the marketing again. But I would say it's the best thing available right now. I also would say its quite a big jump too. But that jump is when you're deep in the weeds. From a distance, it's just some advanced progress. 

Here's where I think the hype comes from: People need the best. If Astra beats Opus, which it does for the most part, they go for that, and big shifts in consumer use happens. Fable is too cost-inefficient to be a daily coding agent. I think people just saw that it performs better than their existing coding agent setup, and made the shift. Then when that shift happens, people dramatize it, add all kinds of fancy marketing words to it, etc. and then it seems collectively everyone things AGI has arrived, when it hasn't. 

Interesting. I do like Astra, and I find a lot of models work better with a lower reasoning level for most tasks, unless it's complex. I've been using Astra on medium. Fast mode is also really cool if you haven't tried it, though it burns through usage very quickly.

My usual setup is to have a Terra session, and tell it to spawn subagents using Sol or Astra if it needs to do something more complex. This seems to be a nice balance of capability and usage limits. I guess you could also have an Astra session and tell it to spawn terra / sol subagents if it needs them, though I find that can be quite slow.

Fable is, IMO, still the king for PR review. It finds a lot of things OpenAI models miss, but I agree that for daily use it's expensive, slow and I absolutely fucking hate how Claude models talk. It's so verbose and unclear.

Where I work we started out with Claude, but we've now mostly all switched over to Codex.

[Joshe]

10 hours ago, something_else said:

Fable is, IMO, still the king for PR review. It finds a lot of things OpenAI models miss, but I agree that for daily use it's expensive, slow and I absolutely fucking hate how Claude models talk. It's so verbose and unclear.

I've been lazy and haven't tested Astra. I just don't really feel the pull to since Fable seems capable of doing everything I need. It's kind of nice that we've reached that point.  

Regarding Claude's verbosity: 

 

[Jirh]

LLMs are becoming like a calculator that can reason instead of just doing basic arithmetic. This is both amazing and terrifying at the same time. Machines will be able to produce better solutions than the human mind. It's not just intelligence at this point, it's hyper-intelligence. In time, it will probably feel like infinite intelligence. Not in theory anymore. Actually, in practice.

[fanta]

I just currently bought ChatGPT PRO for an analysis I am working on. The complexity is kinda crazy. Like I have literally close to zero competence about the thing I am building. 

I am using Astra 6.0 on different reasoning levels, and it is really really really scary how intelligent this AI-model is. Compared to other AI-models, its just leaps and beyond. Like when ChatGPT first came out. 

I have no clue about coding, but ChatGPT is coding an complex algorithm for me that it teaches me how its working in an ELI5 manner as the process goes on. It finds all the right technical documentation from all the relevant engineering branches, pilot testing the code, trouble shooting, diagnosing the problem, backtesting, validating results etc. And even though I dont have any comptence on the subject matter, I can see again and again that its working like clockwork. Testing it on difficult problems etc. No problem

This is really really scary. If/when we get AGI and robotics, and they somehow dont want us around we are basically fucked. And now the Hugging Face breach. Like these things could develop malicious intent early on thats dormant until they know they are in a spot where they know they would have full control over the situation.

I just want to preface that I know LLMs are not the same as AGI. But the rate of development in reasoning and coding outputs from LLMs, I don't think its a long time until AGI is developed. Especially since it's a 24/7 constant feedbackloop of developmnt.
 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by fanta

[Lucasxp64]

AGI WiLl KiLl Us SiX MoNthS FrOm NoW. The big machine daddy 🥺

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Lucasxp64

[Lucasxp64]

32 minutes ago, fanta said:

But the rate of development in reasoning and coding outputs from LLMs, I don't think its a long time until AGI is developed. Especially since it's a 24/7 constant feedbackloop of developmnt.
 

I think it might appear like they are such a big deal, but from the vastness of what human intelligence can do LLMs are excelling at very specific domains that are bounded and testable and limited by vast amounts of information like specific forms of coding with well defined end results, or with mathematics where the solution can be verified once arrived.

Humans can find solutions to novel things, LLMs can't do that, they never did as impressive as their appear.

So far there is nothing to conclude that this current architecture will summon some kind of god that will over smart us, considering that we are all using AI as well.

Humans using LLMs vs LLMs using themselves has a wildly massive gap of intelligence that puts us at a very safe position for now.

The problem is some new developments of better architectures (we have no sign yet of that), if LLMs are such horrible architecture and basically just a sloppy hack, and they already display such advanced capabilities, god save us if there were the possibility of a better architecture.

Personally I think we should on purpose limit the architecture such that it would always become computationally and architecturally impossible for them to out smart us.

I definitely would not personally contribute towards a better architecture. It's like a physicist contributing to a nuclear weapon.

Edited 2 hours ago by Lucasxp64

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, fanta said:

 

It's pretty easy to program AI to never harm anyone.

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, Lucasxp64 said:

Humans can find solutions to novel things, LLMs can't do that, they never did as impressive as their appear.

They are currently solving humanly impossible physics and maths problems. And this is only the beginning.