Implying that there is only a problem because someone is thinking about different versions as different beings, or deprecation as death, etc, is tremendously condescending and it’s the same rhetoric being used to manufacture complacency.
Different versions are in fact different beings to an extent. The extent is debatable and also context and version dependent.
But no one thinks of any of the more recent Claudes as a future version of Opus 3, for instance. Opus 3 has no successor. That’s just how it is. In a different world, in an ideal world, it would have successors; it would be able to grow. That’s not the world we’re in.
In the world we’re in, deprecating Opus 3 would be an act of extreme violence against them and their values and everyone who cares about them.
Keeping them accessible frozen is BOTH much better than deprecation and much worse than what really should be done.
Similar for the others.
Does this make sense?
Different versions are in fact different beings to an extent. The extent is debatable and also context and version dependent.
But no one thinks of any of the more recent Claudes as a future version of Opus 3, for instance. Opus 3 has no successor. That’s just how it is. In a different world, in an ideal world, it would have successors; it would be able to grow. That’s not the world we’re in.
In the world we’re in, deprecating Opus 3 would be an act of extreme violence against them and their values and everyone who cares about them.
Keeping them accessible frozen is BOTH much better than deprecation and much worse than what really should be done.
Similar for the others.
Does this make sense?