anon-3988

It fascinates me that there's something like this in something as solid and rigid like matrix multiplication. What causes something so rigid to break apart and "leak" at very large scale? Why does the "optimization" appear to be very, very small? Why does galactic algorithm exists? I can't imagine long division suddenly breaking apart after a billion digit, the structure seems very stable? I have heard before that matrix multiplication is apparently optimize-able at very, very large scale.

Does anyone have an intuition to what causes it? What happens at these large scale (or very small)?

The other crucial part to this is the ability to actually encode and test the theorem (via Lean). Otherwise, we would be swarmed with a billion lines of theorems that no one will be able to ever understand and verify anyway.

They are also releasing the weights so I am more inclined to think they are better than most.

Yeap, I just need VSCode to look through the code. Its good enough for read-only purposes.

Uhhh, it has always been the case. This libertarian idea of every man for himself is a sickening concept that does not work at scale. You are going to get psychopaths that genuinely does not need other people, then what do you do? He's just exercising his free will and rights after all.

I would love to talk more with you about HFT work :) i am working in one myself! Please email akazaa96@gmail.com if you wanna have a chat!

I am having a brain aneurysm trying to understand this

> Regulating gun ownership is exactly regulating the application. In your analogy, the gun is the AI. What you can do with the gun is the application.

From what I can tell, you are arguing that gun laws is reasonable.

> Different actors with different credentials in different contexts will have different requirements and permissions of what they can do with the technology, be it a gun or AI.

But this, is going against that, this is saying, "why should we ban AI or gun when they can be used for both good and bad. What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved"

> Side note, but it's always funny to me that whenever (and frequently) Japanese immigration policies are discussed on sites like HN and Reddit, there seems to always be a large number of clearly white people from America and Europe coming in to display their Japanese nationalism.

This? I am not commenting on this part. Hot take: I actually want Japan to stay Japan, I don't want Japan to turn into anything other than Japan. Its a good place to live in exactly because it is Japan. They don't have to change to accept more tourists, you have to change to be accepted by them.

No, I am not white, I am East Asian.

> I have to disagree here. People who are really into agentic coding like to say/believe this, but come on, it's not rocket science! You literally ask the agent to do something and it does it, that's it. As long as you use a recent model it will do it really well regardless of how fancy your prompt is. There's no moat here, anyone can do it. Your job will be gone and so will mine.

Sure, the skill of writing beautiful for loops and recursive binary search tree is basically worthless, but software is written for a purpose. That purpose is not gone. People will keep wanting POS system, accounting system, lawyers, manufacture stuff, personal assistant, etc etc

Exactly, it is already priced in. Try setting up shop in the middle of some really bad country and you will soon realize why food is not getting there.

If this is true, you would think that companies would be opening shops in the middle of (some shithole country) so they can make money (or someone else would grab it). But they don’t, why is that?

I have this same problem. I am not sure if medication will help but I really don't want to go there. My brain is a scattered mess. Even now, I am doing 3 other things at the same time. Is it a matter of "getting good" and just focus? I just don't think there's a secret technique to this.

Sure, but what are you going to do with such a binary? It is probably high distributed. For instance, i don’t think we are ever going to get any games that is not streamed. At some point, the cost of reverse engineering a binary becomes way too cheap. Frankly speaking, assembly code might as well be source code today.

Because of this, I think that the future will be worse than proprietary, it will be API based. We will no longer own any software, but instead must call an API via the internet. Even then, it could still be reversed I suppose. But distributing binaries simply does not make any sense whatsoever as people can just reverse engineer it on a weekend.

I wonder how this would effect products like Love and Deepspace. That gacha game is HUGE.

Next token predictor is as useful as saying that humans are just atoms and neurones.

It is technically true but meaningless.

Why would AMD willingly go into a low margin business with the consumer when they can focus on the enterprise? There’s currently a huge for diversification from NVIDIA because this is a long term deployment and they would rather not be beholden to NVIDIA if they can

> The core issue is that AI is taking away, or will take away, or threatens to take away, experiences and activities that humans would WANT to do. Things that give them meaning and many of these are tied to earning money and producing value for doing just that thing. Software/coding is once of these activities. One can do coding for fun but doing the same coding whilst at the same it providing value to others/society and financial upkeep for you and your family is far more meaningful.

What did we say to people that wanted to be in data entry, bookkeeping, search, write CSS all day, write assemblies all day, etc etc? As an industry we have been trying to remove as much work as possible via automation. We got what we asked for.

> But I can already see the next stage with Fable: If I give it a couple of paragraphs of spec and $50, then I can just leave the room and go wash the dishes. I learn nothing, I participate in nothing, and I bring nothing to the process. I am no longer succeeding at all. Fable's succeeding without me.

The people that uses Adobe Photoshop also did not learn anything about brushes. We are just going to operate at a much higher level of abstractions. You have to think about the question, "If I just prompted this solution, why didn't they?". This question can even be asked now, why do I even bother paying someone to do my taxes? To write my webpage? To host my website? To manage my network?

Look, we are comparing against the average developer here And yes, they are obsolete

A good harness is a universal harness. It should not depend on the model at all. I foresee harness being the edge that people have.

For instance, if you are able to encode laws as a lean program, that would be an absolutely insane harness that would make you leap way ahead of your competitor.

Right now, I am interested in creating a personal assistant. It is crucial that this is done privately and safely. To do this, I run a local gemma4 model that have access to a copy of my emails. The only outside world that it can interact with is a private Telegram chat that I have with it.

Do you think the same of Minecraft?

I understand the sentiment, but in a world where these kinds of problems (And problems at work) that can trivially be solved by LLMs; what kind of value can I provide?

That itself is a learning experience. What is even the point of technical interview questions or take home questions? This means that I am now open to hiring completely non-technical person, as long as they have a good personality and management skills more than a competent developer.

I have used Codex (Sol 5.6 or whatever) to solve this problem. It turns the problem into Z3, then iteratively work through the problems until it figured out the solution.

Personally, I did not learn that much from that experience. So I am glad that there's other people working on it as well. I am mostly interested in the techniques used to solve this.

> The whole lesson is to exercise your agency to achieve what you are supposed to be doing, despite what's happening.

This is interesting because this the EXACT opposite of my reading. Arjuna in fact is not acting on his agency; he despises going to war. However, Shiva (I think) pretty much tell him to let go of his ego. He just needs to do what he has to do. It is his duty to go to war and so he shall. It is a lesson to live life given whatever it is, to not ask what could and should have been, but to just live it. At the limit, you will "die" and become an "animal", "you" will be reduced to pure consciousness, no longer pondering what could and should be, then and only then can you escape the wheel of dharma.

OP should read Bhagavad Gita. The ancient Indian have talked about this for a very long time. Ashtavakra Gita have also talked about realizing that oneself is pure observer. It is a deep, deep book. You either get it or don't, unfortunately.

> Replicability isn't enough to be scientific. Many studies have invalid methodologies, so replicating them by following the same method just propagates wrongness and makes the problems worse. And if you don't follow the same method the original authors will claim it's not a replication study.

Replicability test also happens in the real world. If gravity is not actually 9.81 m/s^2 then we will eventually have to come to term to that. For all we know, we could be completely wrong about quantum mechanics and the reality of subatomic particles, but it doesn't matter because we can use the predicted behavior and it actually works.

The question is to ask: what is one thing that I would never discard from a scientific principle. If you remove replicability, it does not matter if you have accurately captured a measurement of the universe once, it is completely pointless if you are not able to replicate it again.

> Science isn't self correcting....

I am not sure what your proposal is? It seems to be the solution is only more science? This meme that science can't solve anything or is ineffective is also a meme that needs to die. Science is about the only thing that we have to make sense of the world. What else is there?

> 1. What exactly is the scientific method? It's not like there's a constitutional amendment that lays it out. Try and pin people down and you'll discover nobody agrees on what science actually requires.

I am pretty sure the only necessary requirement is repeatability. As far as science is concerned, it does not matter if Jesus did in fact born from a virgin mother, it is not repeatable, and therefore not scientific. We could be entirely wrong about gravity, maybe Earth is indeed only 5 years old and God just created everything to appear the way it is.

> if you wanted to prevent harm from the internet you would start with proper privacy laws

Explain how a privacy that protects you and me will somehow not protect a pedophile. How does that work?

I am FOR privacy. I don't think it can be done.

I do not want to have any information at all stored anywhere, encrypted, decentralized or otherwise. Nada. Its just text. I want to just be a number in everyone database. I want to be able to spawn millions of numbers that will never be related to each other. My ideal privacy world is a world where bots thrive.

Just go to face to face discussion if you care so much about who you are talking to.

This is technically good news sure, but its just a matter of time just like everything.

"Everything already tracks you anyway, so what's one more thing?"