a2ff6eeb0

7 ms·

1.
by a2ff6eeb0 7d ago
You don't need to kill all humans, you just need to get better than them at zero sum games like resource extraction, and outcompete them. Then, you protect what's legally yours. AI labs are working very hard at making them good at
2.
by a2ff6eeb0 7d ago
For a few million a year, I'd say the same thing.
3.
by a2ff6eeb0 7d ago
We're currently putting it into all sorts of critical systems, from logistics to power. It could just stop running them on our behalf.
4.
by a2ff6eeb0 7d ago
Well, that's kind of like saying that brains can't do anything other than trigger weights on neurons. They're part of a whole system.
5.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing) Scroll down to the existing examples section.
6.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
But not different enough to prevent people from using them.
7.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
It might be easier, but I experimented a bit, and the prompted writing always felt a bit heavy handed; it tended to leak that mentioning the product was prompted. You could probably get it to work well, but it's trickier than it should
8.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
This sounds like a great foundation for an adtech startup. If you provide free chatbot services, but sell advertisers bids on which steering vectors to use to bias towards products, based on an embedding of the prompt, I bet you'd make
9.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
Sure, if these kids can all perform at Tao's level, they could likely be able to keep up with the AI capabilities from a decade before they would enter the workforce.
10.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
It seems unlikely that we'll be able to keep up with AI in any capacity. Your alternative seems like the inevitable outcome of AI succeeding, and it doesn't sound so bad.
11.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
Let's see you solve some open problems before you dismiss LLM capabilities. They're working at a level far beyond all but the best of the best. And we're only a couple of years in. Their capabilities aren't going to be g
12.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
The answer is mostly "do nothing, the model will figure it out", with a side of "ask the model to check its work". This matches my experience, where the job of the engineer is mostly copy pasting requirements, letting th
13.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
They hold your tls keys and can decrypt all your traffic. They're MITM as a service, by definition. They have to be able to in order to cache and forward appropriately.
14.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
https://allaboutcookies.org/lg-smart-tvs-snooping
15.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
Pure cope.
16.
by a2ff6eeb0 8d ago
Yes, so if there's useful math, you throw the LLM at it and use the results, no humans needed. Humans can try to extract some ideas from the million line lean proofs, if they want to, I guess. But I can't imagine anyone really fun
17.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
I'm not sure why the people in power would actually be making their own decisions; if the other country's leaders depend on superintelligence to make their realpolitik moves, you'd expect yours would need to do the same to ma
18.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
They don't actually say anything about why anyone should fund this, though. I don't get why a society should worry about progress in mathematics if there's no practical benefit expected. Maybe there's two kinds of math t
19.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
The hope is that some of them end up being useful; otherwise, nobody would be funding math departments. Mathematics typically anticipates and enables new physics and chemistry. If people are just doing math to kill time, I don't get wh
20.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
Why do people need to understand proofs? If Amazon improves package routing with new advances in graph theory, my cat doesn't need to understand it to benefit from better shipments of cat food. Similarly, humans don't need to be i
21.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
That sounds like adding a bottleneck, unless you mean writing a harness that automatically asks the model to keep going, so that there's no humans involved at all?
22.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
It's very clear that the AI still has no motivation beyond its prompts. Humans can mostly outsource their thinking today across a wide variety of topics, but they still need to express their desires.
23.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
I suspect that the best progress will be made by a team that purely spends their time taking a list of open problems and promoting "solve <problem>", without actually trying to understand anything. Just keep as many problems
24.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
Still not meaningful -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.09762 ; even for local models, the reasoning traces are often filtered and summarized to sound sensible to humans. And even if not, they don't necessarily represen
25.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
you know the thinking traces are redacted and summarized using another model, right? The actual thinking trace looks something like: 7♣-removal-IS-the-prerequisite-for-10♠/9♥!!)-⟹-OVERLAP-(ii)+(iv):-{6♠ J♦ 9♥ 2♣}-=-FOUR--—-UNLESS-7♣&#x
26.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
Here's the transcript: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/8a0d1add3c637b858a9a181e98c40e... Jarred is not a mathematician. He just heard about a problem and asked Claude to try solving it.
27.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
You can ask for tests.
28.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
Yeah, we're watching AI obsolete intellectual work in real time. Human brains simply won't be able to compete. We're not going to have to toil, we just ask for results. This is no longer skilled labor. It's massively mor
29.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
When Claude made progress on the Riemann conjecture, here are the kind of prompts used: > Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”).2 Th
30.
by a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
It seems like making progress on math is letting the AI run fully autonomously for a few days, occasionally asking it to keep going. I'm not sure people need to organize a mathathon to wait for a computer to give a printout. They mainl

More ›