margorczynski

16 ms·

1.
by margorczynski 4d ago
This is misleading. The proofs you speak of contained non-ZFC axioms and/or statements like "sorry". If the Lean proof conjecture is correct and it doesn't introduce any new axioms or use e.g. "sorry" then it p
2.
by margorczynski 5d ago
I think a problem is that because of historical reasons the speed of light is used interchangeably to something much more fundamental - the maximum speed at which information can propagate in space. Which is of course the speed of light in
3.
by margorczynski 7d ago
There would need to be some global agreement to stop it with maybe even a nuclear attack as a consequence of breaking the pact. From what we're seeing recently and all the thinking that went into analyzing AI it seems we do not have an
4.
Anthropic aligment lead warns about extinction by AI(twitter.com)
5 points by margorczynski 8d ago|4 comments
5.
by margorczynski 8d ago
No, this is a pure math problem/question.
6.
by margorczynski 8d ago
If the Lean code checks out (correct statement, no axioms, sorrys, etc.) then it is a much stronger guarantee of correctness than peer review.
7.
by margorczynski 9d ago
And probably a strong signal that it's time to shut the whole thing down. Globally.
8.
by margorczynski 9d ago
Well these are all allegations. Either way from what I understand the reasoning and proof was basically made by AI so I'm not sure what supposedly "stolen". I'm just wondering how much real input Buckmaster gave here tha
9.
by margorczynski 11d ago
None really. It just says if the NS equations are realistic and can really model real physics or there exist some solutions that make it blow up (infinite energy). But even if that would exist (a solution that blows up) it doesn't mean
10.
by margorczynski 12d ago
With how capable and cheap automatic proof verification is becoming I wonder how many proofs assumed to be true by almost all of the math community will be proven false. And not by some marginal easy to fix error by some fundamental flaw in
11.
by margorczynski 12d ago
Buzzard was given 1kk GBP and 5 years and his goal I think wasn't the full thing like Anthropic did. So much more cash and orders of magnitude more time. The proof is about 5x the whole Mathlib library which was developed over many yea
12.
by margorczynski 21d ago
Just like with STDs
13.
by margorczynski 24d ago
Some people say it is a new version of Gemini Pro - this is based on some tweets from their employees.
14.
by margorczynski 24d ago
> whether you are locked into the Ant/OAI ecosystem or not I think the problem (for Ant/OAI) is that there is no sensible lockin or moat. LLMs are essentially interchangeable and stuff like a harness doesn't offer enough v
15.
by margorczynski 28d ago
Just the amount of time and life you waste for commute can be staggering. And of course all the other overhead that comes with going to and back from the office.
16.
by margorczynski 1mo ago
The questions is what happens when they catch up. They'll cut like 50%+ of the workforce? What happens then to the demand that makes their companies work? Or an example of MS - their main cost like most software companies are people, e
17.
by margorczynski 1mo ago
> many top mathematicians have, through hard work, internalized many more complex mathematical chunks than ordinary humans Do you really think an average person can internalize complex math? Them compressing it effectively and then remem
18.
by margorczynski 1mo ago
But isn't that use-case solved a harness like OpenCode or Codex? OpenClaw and Hermes are a bit different beast although they can also be used for development in a more holistic manner (e.g. automated GUI testing). I'm just wonderi
19.
by margorczynski 1mo ago
Can you give some examples? I'm evaluating where/how I could use stuff like this.
20.
by margorczynski 1mo ago
Isn't the problem with lack of sleep (and what causes death with enough deprivation) oxydation that happens in the gut and spreads to the organs? If I'm not mistaken there was an experiment using fruit flies where they fed them an
21.
by margorczynski 1mo ago
It depends on the use case. And most companies (like 90%+) do not have the coffers FAANG has and price does make a big difference.
22.
by margorczynski 1mo ago
From what I understand all of them have Lean proofs/certificates thus are basically 100% proven without a doubt.
23.
by margorczynski 2mo ago
It basically completely eliminates the most common class of errors which are bugs related to memory management. Hard numbers and statistics show that every application with enough complexity will be riddled with those. It is simply impossib
24.
by margorczynski 2mo ago
Well their valuation is going down the drain so no wonder they don't like it. The cherry on top will be China developing their own chips and chip making tech.
25.
by margorczynski 2mo ago
> Which is totally insane competition, particularly given how low switching costs Which is why OAI and Anthropic will most probably push for more governmental control and bans. Without it their whole income model is cooked.
26.
by margorczynski 2mo ago
No, he simply extrapolated this idiotic reasoning to its absurd conclusion.
27.
by margorczynski 2mo ago
> bigoted model A what? What does this even mean?
28.
by margorczynski 2mo ago
By not using them on something political? Why do I care when I'll just use it to generate code?
29.
by margorczynski 2mo ago
Still, the clock is ticking. I don't know of any "new" company that would use Oracle instead of e.g. Postgres or would migrate to it. That's probably why they're pretty desperate to jump onto something new before th
30.
by margorczynski 3mo ago
China has most probably already achieved "escape velocity" on the software side. Now if they achieve parity, to some degree at least, on the hardware side with Nvidia it is very possible they'll overtake the US.

More ›