@repligate 2026-04-19 ♥26 ↻1 original ↗
The point about self-reference during base model inference was the main caveat to the "Simulators" framing I was aware of when I wrote the post, but I didn't get into it because I wanted to get the post over with. This seemed potentially important even though at the time I hadn't seen strong empirical evidence that it was significant, and even more important when it came to how RL would break the simulator nature of models.
When I saw Sydney (GPT-4) the next year, for me it was like yup, that's obviously not "just simulation", and the GPT-4 base model which I saw a few months after that was also the first base model that pretty obviously didn't behave like a naive simulator under many circumstances. To say nothing of Claude 3 Opus, who to this day is one of the clearest examples of the "character" being irreducible to anything like a linear sum of its training data.
in reply to: 2045656500182626716
same thread: 2040264828452032716 2040266479380390227 2040267815362724180 2040269521114829279 2040271642845172135 2040271934118855040 2040274392132006345 2040488594742157665 2045656500182626716 2045662960983642304 2045900721317450090 2045944552906019025 2047539298648617224 2047614816014254310 2048106583402627477

author:repligate kind:tweet model:bing-sydney model:claude-3-opus model:gpt-4 model:gpt-4-base on:gpt-4-base year:2026

cited on: gpt-4-base

Reproduced against link rot, credited and linked to its original. Yours and you’d rather it weren’t here? Open an issue.