> The models have not plateaued, and they are not even mildly close to any sort of ceiling.
Depends on defnition of "plateaued" and "ceiling". I am not impressed with 2026 consumer models at all.
> This is also compounding because the AI is accelerating the pace of research, testing, development, manufacturing, etc.
Yet it does accelerate - so is does Twitter. But does it to any substantial degree, esp. in AI theory? All the modern LLMs are the same old tired 2017 paper.
It does not if you switch swapp off and use zram instead. I am typing right now on such a setup wityh 16 GiB ram and it occasionally, once a week or so, kills my firefox due to oom.
If you are you using disk swap - not sure why would if you have a SSD, but I once heard some justification for doing that - then install early OOM.
Apple mnitors for whatever reason use ancient 450nm backlight, which strains my eyes like no tomorrow. All modern 5k and 6k use 455-460nm backlight. Otherwise, yes, APples are good.
> Built-in hardware calibration is non-negotiable for color critical work
No it is mostly a convenience gimmick. Support for external hardware calibration is important though. But far more important feature, implemented properly only by Eizo and no one else I am aware of - is uniformity compensation. Benq has it, so does Dell, but they all come with sever limitations compared to Eizo.
> No it is mostly a convenience gimmick. Support for external hardware calibration is important though.
Until you decide to use Linux and all the distros you're interested in force you to use Wayland (which is a color management trainwreck).
Also, I find that for actual work the calibration actually gets done if the display does it by itself during night at set intervals. Perhaps I'm just lazy.
You can "great learning experience" about the human nature from a good fiction book too. Classics have another function - being cultural landmarks, one can refer to in non-fictional contexts as well.
LLMisms are almost universally results of using a narrow set of mainstream offerings from Anthropic and Openai. Even Muse Spark has style much less "sloppy" than Claude et al, let alone Chinese LLMs. I mean yes, they have their own tics, but if you don know them you won't even notice.
But I do know them, and so do you, and they’re signs of cost cutting partly for the reason you mention. They’re the careless, basic “no-brainer” choice of models, plus a lack of editing, or a very light “edit” in which obvious, even famous tics are left in. (Many real editors would clean up writers’ tics.) So it’s possible care was put into it, but tics visibility is evidence against it and not evidence for it. If your text does pass and educated readers don’t see it, it’s a consequence of care and intent, which is what we’re really asking for.
I tried at it creative writing - and, with thinking off, it was considerably better than Mercury 2 and generally good in fact, not very sloppy. Now with thinking on, it got worse, began hallucinating things; this is something I've noticed with all recent models - enabling reasoning causes hallucinations in creative writing assignments.
Similar, I've found that on most recent models I've tried, reasoning will cause it to spend quite a lot of time thinking about whether even the most wholesome fictional scenario is something it's allowed to write about, which in turn causes it to start hallucinating details. For creative writing I've found the minimum of thinking is the best way.
Could you explain how you define hallucination in the context of creativity? Lack of consistency aside, the two look quite similar to me - or would you consider the existence of orcs and elves in LOTR to be hallucinations, too?
> Could you explain how you define hallucination in the context of creativity
Mostly as you've mentioned, "lack of consistency", which manifests in variety of ways - presence of cellphones in historical settings (I'd call them "global inconsistency") and a character for whatever reason suddenly smoking a cigarette ("local inconsistency") I've never mentioned nor present in the context.
reply