cman1444

5 ms·

1.
by cman1444 5d ago
Is it really such an extraordinary claim to say that they could have solved the problem without copying Buckmaster and Alpoge? It seems very much in the realm of possibilities. To me, it seems just as extraordinary to claim that they did
2.
by cman1444 5d ago
It seems a perfectly reasonable possibility that Navier-Stokes is just the most easily solvable of the remaining problems, and that their new model is capable of solving it while not being capable of solving the others. There's many ca
3.
by cman1444 6d ago
You forgot possibility 3: OpenAI solved the problem without using any private training data from the two researchers. Everyone in this thread seems to have made up their mind about OpenAI's guilt though.
4.
by cman1444 7d ago
>For other workers: wages may increase on paper, but not really for actual purchasing power. This is not necessarily a conclusion you can draw from that statement. It's possible that as the economic pie grows, workers' purchasi
5.
by cman1444 7d ago
No. As I said, the long-term gains are mixed-to-positive. And, all else being equal, you would rather have more short term job gains than none at all.
6.
by cman1444 7d ago
Except, so far, this isn't actually what happens. I listened to Moody's "Inside Economics" podcast with Ramp's Chief Economist, and they observe that companies who adopt AI intensively actually hire 10% more people.
7.
by cman1444 7d ago
Because he works for Anthropic. Supposedly this project was not part of his official capacity as an employee of theirs. However, if they had published first, it's hard to imagine Anthropic not taking the opportunity to claim "our
8.
by cman1444 8d ago
Where did the veil lift? This feels like a witch-hunt to me.
9.
by cman1444 8d ago
Even if true, I don't see why this is an issue. Are they not allowed to work on problems others are working on? Did Anthropic get first dibs on this problem? Competition is good. And I don't exactly have tons of sympathy when the
10.
by cman1444 12d ago
If we accept that it is a proof then it does improve human knowledge, even if no one can understand how to get there. If you were navigating a pitch dark cave, wouldn't you find it useful to be able to see the light of the cave opening
11.
by cman1444 15d ago
Would it be more reasonable to take images from movies and create worlds of various IPs? My first thought is a detailed Hogwarts that is fully explorable using scenes from the movies (or even descriptions from the books?)
12.
by cman1444 23d ago
How do you know they didn't go over it?
13.
by cman1444 26d ago
The big question is if there are larger economic gains to be made from ever greater intelligence. It seems to me like that may be the case for only a select few hard problems, while the vast majority of tasks approach their economic ceiling
14.
by cman1444 27d ago
This is a needless qualifier for the argument at hand. A proof can just be "assuming these axioms.....the area of a triangle is X"
15.
by cman1444 27d ago
So then it sounds like you agree that math has additional utility beyond just human comprehension. If I understand you correctly, you're just qualifying that that will only be the case when AGI exists. To be clear, I actually disagree
16.
by cman1444 1mo ago
Surely there are cases where a user could request child sexual content without it being technically criminal. For example, sexually suggestive clothing/content that is not complete nudity.
17.
by cman1444 1mo ago
Isn't that what the antagonists mentioned in the article are for?
18.
by cman1444 1mo ago
>Orexin receptor agonism was thought to be a mechanism of modafinil/armodafinil. The article seems to imply this is not the case. Do you have a source that says that Orexin agonism is the mechanism of action for modafinil?
19.
by cman1444 1mo ago
Could you please share this spreadsheet? I would really love to have my own version of this.
20.
by cman1444 2mo ago
Very case dependent of course. There are loads of small towns that have stagnant or shrinking populations all across the US.
21.
by cman1444 2mo ago
Shhhhh, it's way more fun to spout cynical and clever quips about a publication without backing it up with any reasoning.
22.
by cman1444 2mo ago
Why?
23.
by cman1444 2mo ago
Wow, I find economist to be one of the best publications to read about global events. Can you say more about what you think they lie about?
24.
by cman1444 3mo ago
The blog actually spells it "Artic", not "Arctic". I wonder if the blog or the company misspelled it.
25.
by cman1444 3mo ago
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/beauty
26.
by cman1444 3mo ago
What is the difference between "beauty" and "elegance" of a proof?
27.
by cman1444 3mo ago
The middle east is in Asia, no?
28.
by cman1444 3mo ago
Reminds me of the doherty threshold. When will AI respond in less than 400 milliseconds?
29.
by cman1444 3mo ago
By this logic all money is inherently worthless too, and every time you buy a sandwich at the local corner shop you're just passing off that worthless piece of paper to the next schmuck. In reality, things have value because people bel
30.
by cman1444 3mo ago
That ".125% is not much to matter" argument also cuts the other way, against the Matt Levine argument that the S&P is excluding trillion dollar companies and should adjust the rules for them. Should S&P really adjust the r

More ›