ak_111

Is there really a moral panic? Apart from a few viral Twitter posts, I don't see a major sobriety push by my colleagues.

Profits of main alcohol suppliers has certainly taken a hit over the last 5 years but this is arguably far more because of rise of remote working, inflation (drinking at pubs have become much more costly than before) and people in general just addicted to their phone rather than going out (similar to the impact on almost all social activities no just going to pubs)

Not an expert, but as I understand from my colleagues you can make a case for lots of really important problems related to protein folding to be included in the list. As protein folding hasn't been nearly "solved" by alphafold as has been reported in many places.

Devil's advocate: OpenAI not being able to use compute is highly correlated to many other AI companies not being able to find a meaningful use of this compute.

Failure to take into consideration those kind of correlations ("If my biggest client isn't able to buy it, I would be able to find someone else who will") is one of the principle causes why many risk models turned out to be garbage during the Great Financial Crisis.

Do you realise that the only reason the average US taxpayer keeps getting wrecked into one pointless forever war after the other no matter who is in power is because the elites are never held accountable for their mad self-enriching adventures?

Holding people like Hegseth (who literally insider traded defense equities right before the start of the war) and Trump accountable (who practically made a gazillion insider trading each mad meme he posted while the world burnt) is not "dividing people into teams"

This war started as a regime change operation in Iran, one of the shakiest regimes in the world pre-war, but ironically the war might end up with most of the nations who supported the war (either vocally or quietly) "regime changed" (loosely defined), including Israel, US, some European countries and now possibly some Gulf nations, awhile the Iranian regime seem to have tightened its grip more than ever.

Yet MAGA supporters were saying early in the war that they are "plan trusters" as prior US admins sucked at regime change because it is a "skills issue" and none of the prior admins had the triple digits IQ of Hegseth, Trump and Bessent.

Is it possible that they claim they used a "new internal model" to provide an excuse for "training" on new user data, knowing full well this new user data will include Buckmaster's chat?

So the entire "new internal model" is 'parallel construction' in criminology speak to justify spying on Buckmaster's work in a legal way.

This is indeed a good concise description of how to connect the two, but even making peace with this, there is something still magical in how the permutations in the sum cancel neatly (in an inclusion-exclusion kind of a way) to get the volume.

But if you see the geometric view then the permutation sum, for certain obsessive learners they want to see why they are equivalent and thats the hard part.

Determinants are easy to use but very hardly to grasp intuitively, this is not a minority point of view. See countless of StackOverflow questions begging for a conceptual exposition of determinants.

The easiest conceptual handle is geometric: volume expansion, but seeing how this is related to the combinatorial sum over all permutations, or how those two point of views are related to the algebraic one (that a set of equations having a solution or not), is not easy to see even in the 2D case.

I won't be surprised if math professors don't have this issue like you said (especially if someone is comfortable with wedge products), but the vast majority of newcomers who are interested in understanding why something works rather than just how to use it struggle all the time with determinants.

ah i thought so, interesting. I think the challenge is to do 2 while still keeping it realistic, which actually gets very close to synthetic data generation.

if the data is not synthetic, how do you ensure that the LLM hasn't learnt about this data for example from training on the Financial Times.

This is not new, most famous conjectures are believed to be true mainly because an already enormous brute force search was conducted finding no counter-example.

lol honest this wasn’t AI, I guess I need to work on my style

Hmm this sounds like an incumbent missing a paradigm shift because they didn't want it to disrupt their core (usually enterprise) business, although riding the shift would have ultimately delivered an order magnitude larger business.

Classical example is Microsoft actively undermining mobile because it threatened selling Windows or enterprise licenses.

Or Yahoo fighting Google's model because the latter model's didn't depend on taking enterprise deals to rank results.

Well you can see from the original poster's timeline, that 10 years from now will be effectively 16 years into Apple's ARM journey, so you can add two more cycles.

And also from the timeline you can see that the average Apple hardware transition period is 2.75 cycles, so I wouldn't bet too much that their ARM journey will last more than 6 cycles.

ten years is a very long time in technology, RISC-V ecosystem could be so vibrant and advanced that it might prove more cost effective for Apple just to feed off it (assuming Apple is still relevant by then).

It's almost like trying to predict if the smartphone leaders in 2006 (Nokia / RIM) would want to adopt this new mobile operating system that hardly anyone uses (android) in 2016.

clever tricks has value for sure. But the main way progress is done in mathematics is by building new theory, the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is much more important because of the math it created to solve the problem, rather than actually solving the problem.

Unlike the unit distance problem, the impressive thing here is that it is a proof rather than a counter-example.

However, it seems the proof is extremely concise so it seems that it is exploiting a clever trick that somehow all the experts missed.

So not to dunk on this amazing result (or move the goal post), but it seems now the only achievement that AI hasn't managed in mathematics is presenting an autonomous "theory-building" proof of an open conjecture. That is a proof that requires creating a substantial new theory (developed say in at least 30+ pages) to crack an open problem.

Open any technical textbook in an area slightly outside your domain and you will quickly disabuse yourself of the notion that majority of words are obscure. Most complex words are just technical/jargon not archaic or forgotten.

Just top of my head (and I don't even follow his takes that closely), just check his takes on Magic Leap which he consistently promoted using quite dramatic langauge (along with the entire AR space) and check how it panned out.

I am also not sure about Finney, but Hal saw his death coming so it is plausible he handed the reins to one more person he deeply trusted, and asked him to tie some knots but not to keep the show going.

Anyone tried to run some stylometry to identify if satoshi-like comments appeared in any of the early post on hacker news discussing BTC? I would say there is a very significant chance he might have added to the discussion in say the first couple of posts before BTC went mainstream (or even mainstream within hacker circles).

This very interesting hypothesis and solves multiple issues at once, has anyone attempted debunking it?

It is getting to the point where all the top (living) credibly accused Satoshis are incurring all the cost of being outed as Satoshi without getting any of the upside.

In other words it is almost irrational to deny it is you (if it is really you) if you are outted after a major investigation by the paper of record, so it is rational to take Back’s denial as honest.

His security is already screwed anyone who is incentivised to harm him for billions will already do it for tens of millions (or if they think there is more than 50% chance Back is a multi billionaire), so he might as well take the credit for it and live with the consequenes if it is really him.

Wait it seems like doing unscalable things - like face-to-face teaching/examination - is exactly the sort of things that humanity can afford to do as it benefits from the surplus free time generated by AI efficiently doing the scalable things.

can you elaborate more, also isn't this necessary for a Lab that wants to compete with highly funded entities (like OpenAI, Anthropic)?

Concorde?

What are they top 3 languages that you have used that can be used as Go alternatives ranked by fun in your opinion (I am guessing Clojure and Rust are two of them)?

It’s a combination of the problem appearing to be low-hanging fruit in hindsight and the fact that almost nobody actually seemed to have checked whether it was low-hanging in the first place. We know it’s the latter because the problem was essentially uncited for the last three decades, and it didn't seem to have spread by word of mouth (spreading by word of mouth is how many interesting problems get spread in math).

This is different from the situation you are talking about, where a problem genuinely appears difficult, attracts sustained attention, and is cited repeatedly as many people attempt partial results or variations. Then eventually someone discovers a surprisingly simple solution to the original problem which basically make all the previous paper look ridiculous in hindsight.

In those cases, the problem only looks “easy” in hindsight, and the solution is rightly celebrated because there is clear evidence that many competent mathematicians tried and failed before.

Are there any evidence that this problem was ever attempted by a serious mathematician?

You can do a lot of money in swindles and bubbles if you time your exit well. There is a fair bit of opportunistic investors who did well in the NFT craze, who speculated knowing fully well that NFT is a craze that will go to zero.