Jensson

> Wait 1-2 months, Anthropic will come up with a shinier model and Googel will look obsolete again. I too struggle to see the moat - yes Google is able to serve their own A.I traffic but as far as I can see - at a loss. Prices keep going down because open source models. We'll see.

Google makes AI profits, its in their breakdowns. And Google has been releasing models every few weeks now, they have a faster iteration pace than the competitors, so they fixed that, they wont be behind in coding models any longer.

There is plenty transmission capacity, the issue is EU regulations not allowing Sweden to keep prices low in the south.

> there is very much a plausible world in which only a small handful of consolidated bank accounts exist so long as those bank accounts can reasonably control the monopoly of violence.

Capitalism means separation of violence from capital, if capital controls violence then its not capitalism because there can only be a free market when guns that can't be bribed with money protects it.

For example in communism capital control violence, that is why its so bad, since when capital controls violence it no longer need to produce good results to thrive, it can just use force, which is how every communist regime acted.

In anarchy capital also control violence, so its not capitalism, since without a state to prevent capital from hiring thugs to force others into submission you don't have a free market, whoever has the most thugs wins.

> It probably does work good however Switzerland got dangerously close to "something happening" this year with the 10M referendum. And it was very close, with major parts of the country showing an absurd level of ignorance

Switzerland already voted against immigration once before in 2014, EU punished them for it and they walked it back quickly. No larger catastrophe happened.

Why wouldn't it work if Switzerland was poorer? Are poor people dumber and make stupid decisions if you give them direct democracy, or what do you mean?

I don't see what would break if for example Netherlands copied Swiss direct democracy.

> It's also been shown in studies that nonviolent felonies are imposed against minorities at a much higher rate, for the same crimes.

This also applies to men, so is it a white matriarchal system oppressing men and minorities?

The whole point why anyone cares about these proofs is that the things we learn as we make the proof might add value, proving p = np itself isn't interesting, that knowledge has no application and therefore no value in itself.

I have published mathematics so I do value knowledge, but for most of mathematics the value of the knowledge isn't the thing you try to prove it is all the things you learn as you try to prove it. p = np is one such thing.

So the whole interesting bit about it is the proof, not the fact.

Axioms don't exist independently from our feelings and processes, we pick axioms we feel are good, and axioms defines mathematics.

Mathematicians even argue which axioms we should have, it isn't objective in the slightest, mathematics is therefore very closely linked to our feelings and intuition. Remove that and you just have formal logic, a very different field.

Why wouldn't you be able to do that without a proof? I don't see the value of the proof here, just ask the AI to solve the problem you want and the proof isn't needed.

But at that point you have full AGI and its not just today's models. Today's models still need humans to understand things since it builds upon human knowledge.

When you have full AGI of course you no longer need humans to understand math.

> Imagine if humans couldn't understand multivariable calculus, but we had access to an AI system that developed it

Developing multivariable calculus requires much more than just solving problems though, it requires defining an entirely new system and space. That is not the situation mathematicians face today, modern AI cannot do that.

When talking about mathematicians and AI don't use fictive examples, we can look at what AI can do today and extrapolate that they can do more of that tomorrow, that is what we have to work with.

In the case you posit where AGI exists there is no reason to even discuss what is left for humans to do, since AGI is defined as when humans are no longer needed for anything, the AGI can do every bit of thinking humans can.

> It would be very useful to have an oracle tells us whether or not RH is correct.

For what? Which product becomes better if it is correct?

A proof that they are the same is of no use either, since it too wouldn't help you find algorithms that are faster.

You would need an algorithm that finds solutions, not just a proof they exist. So the value here would almost entirely come from how you proved p = np, since that proof will probably be the first step towards finding the polynomial solutions. But if humans don't understand it good luck finding any.

p = np doesn't produce any value though, the stuff you learn solving it might but the fact that they are the same wouldn't be valuable at all.

But currently we are in a very temporary supply shock, and its called a shortage.

> in a free market happens via price increases and in an unfree market happens via shortages

Since people have earmarked purchases in advance the market isn't free, I'm not allowed to buy the ram another person already bought. Its the same how the texas electricity market works, prices reach infinity since there are more consumers that have already bought electricity than there is electricity left to provide, and you get a shortage.

Free markets with contracts aren't free since contracts creates constraints that results in shortages like this.

Going to church is equivalent to watching tv, its not work.

Europe is already acting, its the rest of the world that isn't.

CO2 and global warming makes the world more arable, not less. So famine wont be an issue, some parts of the world might be but not Europe.

> But how many times can you take a piece of Ikea furniture apart and put it back together again?

How many times can you take apart regular furniture and put it back together again? Most furniture doesn't come apart at all, just move the ikea furniture like you move any other furniture don't take it apart every time and you are fine, it would be weaker if it was possible to disassemble it without issue.

Cavemen invented language, language isn't just combination of concepts, it requires defining all the concepts.

Then they start a coding bootcamp.

HN removes every post that doesn't get upvotes, especially if they get lots of comments.

> Firstly it’s not curing anything, it’s yielding some improvement

It did cure some people, it yielded some improvements on average but it did yield extreme improvements in some people. That part isn't controversial.

> (and even if it were noticed: periods of lucidity are not rare. It would probably be ignored)

A year of being able to walk and talk normally when a patient could barely function at all would be noticed for sure.

If anesthetics cured Alzheimer's temporarily then any surgery would get the same effect and we would already know about it.

But that would suggest that this cures some form of Alzheimer's but not all forms.

If your Alzheimer's is caused by poor drainage due to a one off blockage this would solve it completely, but if its due to something else this would probably just be temporary as the article notes.

Reddits owner is also petty and insecure and edited other peoples posts, Elon hasn't done that yet. Didn't seem to stop reddit from getting popular, people don't really care that much.

It does motivate their product though, the market for legal csam adjacent content is big and the other providers wont let you do that with their models.

> Data access doesn't really explain it unless all labs simultaneously got access to some treasure trove of data.

They have data from their competitors model outputs. It is very hard to serve an LLM without also exposing how it works.

Yes, and that is why you can't say "its as smart as a single human" and think its as smart as humans, because humans can get smarter by cooperating, if the AI can't do that to create a smarter AI it is not as smart as humans, meaning an AI that is not as smart as a team of humans is essentially not as smart as a single human either.

> Would you trust a bridge built by a single human?

But an AI doesn't replace a single human, it replaces every human in the project, so it needs to match a team of humans not a single human.

It only works until people try to withdraw money that doesn't exist. The less people believe the earlier that happens, but it will happen sooner or later.