SpicyLemonZest

6 ms·

1.
by SpicyLemonZest 3d ago
If that’s true, doesn’t that make it even more clear that the frontier labs require government involvement and cannot rely on what David Sacks thinks the government would or would not allow?
2.
by SpicyLemonZest 3d ago
No, that’s not accurate. An agreement among competitors to not engage in research that would let them outcompete each other is clearly an antitrust issue requiring a government waiver.
3.
by SpicyLemonZest 3d ago
Enron was doing some bad things in energy markets, but they were profitable bad things and unrelated to the collapse. What brought Enron down was accounting problems, with many of the specific details having clear parallels here. In particu
4.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
In early 2019 OpenAI released a post titled "Better language models and their implications" ( https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/ ). In this post, they explained that their new GPT-2 model sho
5.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
You're expected to take it seriously because a number of their previous predictions about where the technology would go have ended up being correct. A lot of problems AI systems are already causing would be in a much better spot had pe
6.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
I don't understand where everyone insists on hallucinating this idea from, that frontier AI labs want everyone else but not themselves to slow down. They've never said that, they've never said anything like that, not once has
7.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
Again, we’re not left to speculate, they’re being quite clear. I think you’re struggling to understand what Tao and his cosignatories are saying because you’ve acquired a very specific kind of “AI-pilled” mindset from social media, where ta
8.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
Agreed. I’m sure there was a time in the early history of computational mathematics where someone with access to more computer time than others went around telling people how easy it is to generate books of trigonometric tables, and other p
9.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
The more generous interpretation would be that Anthropic thinks they know how to build powerful AI systems in such a way that they will not become doomsday devices at all. They don't claim to be the only people with this knowledge an
10.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
People are expecting you to consider the possibility that they might believe what they're saying. If you don't start from the premise that they're lying, you'll discover that their behavior is not cutthroat or cynical
11.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
> No, what you would do is stop your own private development immediately, get in touch with the government by any means necessary, and build a coalition as fast as possible to stop the technology from continuing and put hard regulation (
12.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
No, Altman and Musk have already said that they agree with Dario this time. As you can see upthread, people have already developed a novel conspiracy theory to account for that, as I'm sure they'll continue doing up to and beyond
13.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
Kinda? One of the biggest advantages of being small is that, when someone asks where they can find suchandsuch feature, you can build it and point them to it in the same time it would take a larger company to reply “yeah that’s on our roadm
14.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
I'm not sure what's getting lost in translation here. The answer is quite clear: math textbooks are valued based on their ability to help readers understand mathematical principles, not based on the number or complexity of problem
15.
by SpicyLemonZest 4d ago
The declaration is about that institutional misalignment. They want to change the norms of the mathematical community, so that producing inscrutable proofs is a low-value activity nobody cares much about rather than a high-value activity th
16.
by SpicyLemonZest 5d ago
No, you're misunderstanding the perspective. They believe the journey is a learning experience greatly beneficial to the field , and that this experience rather than the headline result is where most of the value lies. They don't
17.
by SpicyLemonZest 5d ago
The authors of the declaration agree with you that this is how the field works today. They think that fact causes AI use to produce bad results, and they want to reformulate how the field works so that AI use will produce good results inste
18.
by SpicyLemonZest 5d ago
It's a real example that's happened to me twice in the past year, so I'm not sure what to make of the idea that it's far away from how the real world works. I'm also not sure I understand what you're objecting
19.
by SpicyLemonZest 5d ago
It's valuable for you , the person who's going to spend a bunch of deep design effort, to make POCs. Is it valuable for someone else to drive by, dump some POCs on your lap, and then leave you to do the deep design effort while t
20.
by SpicyLemonZest 5d ago
> But it does produce value. We now have an explicit solution and even a proof. Humans can then work on clarifying why it's true. Unsurprisingly, not all that different from software, where models can generate working code just fine
21.
by SpicyLemonZest 5d ago
No. Merged code can perform actions with effects on the world, even if a human being never saw it. Constructing a giant Lean formalization that nobody understands simply doesn't do anything.
22.
by SpicyLemonZest 5d ago
> I thought Navier-Stokes (and some of the other millenium prize problems) actually had implications for useful technology. This is the core misunderstanding that the open letter is attempting to correct. Developing a better understandi
23.
by SpicyLemonZest 5d ago
Their claim is only indirectly related to the motivations of the people using their models. What they're saying is that doing math in this way does not produce the same value as traditional mathematical research, and the people using t
24.
by SpicyLemonZest 5d ago
He sees value in mathematicians using AI to carefully study mathematics, develop an understanding of both old and new things, and help others understand the new things. He doesn't see value in scrolling through unsolved problems asking
25.
by SpicyLemonZest 6d ago
I don't think that's the problem the source article is describing. I've seen a number of instances now where people produce work product they don't understand at any level. "Hey Claude, design this feature and sen
26.
by SpicyLemonZest 6d ago
Yes, this is a problem with modern AI systems in general. It's not just OpenAI, and if you know any artists you know this is why they're pretty vehemently opposed to all AI.
27.
by SpicyLemonZest 6d ago
What? I don't understand how you even came up with this idea, much less consider it so obvious to condescend about it. Do you have even a single example of a research project that got scooped because the Google Docs team forwarded thei
28.
by SpicyLemonZest 7d ago
This is absolutely not "common sense opsec". If I type information about some proof I'm exploring into a Google Doc, I do not worry even a tiny bit that the Docs team might forward it to a team of advanced mathematicians in c
29.
by SpicyLemonZest 7d ago
No, that order was for a defined period that has ended.
30.
by SpicyLemonZest 7d ago
> Walmart is currently trialing it to save $3B-$7B a year in interchange fees. No crypto, just XML messages through a mainframe at the Federal Reserve with a 20 second SLA. Please tell your user that this SLA is much too high for many pu

More ›