aubanel

Are you pointing to another pope with "another symbolic figure with empty gestures"? Would be clearer to name him then! Having read a bit of the previous pope Benedict XVI I liked a lot what he did/wrote

It seems to me that MCP alone could already allow the main use case claimed by A2A, which is an agent assigning a task to another agent: if you put an agent behind a MCP server, an agent can query it as if it was another tool, and voila, you don't need A2A. But maybe I miss other use cases.

Djikstra's clarity of expression and thoguht is indeed impressive. One nuance : he seems to completely equate ease of language with ability to do undetectable mistakes. I disagree: I know people whose language is extremely efficient at producing analogies that can shortcut for the listener many pages of painful mathematical proofs: for instance, convenu the emergence of complexity for many simple processes by a "swarming"

As a total noob in this domain, general evidence of increased sleep and muscle recovery with creating points me towards taking some, just to be more efficient at work: any counterarguments ?

How does it match the definition of facism? From what I know fascism has components like having the collective prime over the individual, and cult of personality, that Trump's administration does not have. (Before you think I'm a Trump supporter/fascist, I'm not even American, and my great-grandparents fought Nazis)

Please elaborate. From what I know fascism has components like having the collective prime over the individual, and cult of personality, that Trump's administration does not have. (Before you think I'm a Trump supporter/fascist, I'm not even American, and my great-grandparents fought Nazis)

Using the insult "Fascist" in every other sentence really diminishes whatever message was in there

> Generalist scaling is stalling. This was the whole message behind the release of GPT-4.5: capacities are growing linearly while compute costs are on a geometric curve. Even with all the efficiency gains in training and infrastructure of the past two years, OpenAI can't deploy this giant model with a remotely affordable pricing.

Hard disagree. 1. "Capacities are growing linearly while compute costs are on a geometric curve" is the very definition of scaling. GPT4.5 continuing this trend is the opposite of stalling: it's the proof that scaling continues to work 2. "OpenAI can't deploy this giant model with a remotely affordable pricing" WTF? Gpt-4.5 has the same price per token than GPT-4 at release. It seems high compared to other models, but is still dirt cheap compared to human labor. And this model's increased quality means it is the only viable option for some tasks. I have needed proofreading for my book: o1 or o3-mini were not up to the task, but gpt-4.5 really helps. GPT-4.5 is also a leap forward on agentic capabilities. So of course I'll pay for this, it saves me hours by enabling new use-cases

No it's not: their model is only on GPT-4.5 level on a few, saturated/cherry-picked benchmarks.

yes, which suggests they'll keep going down! So I'd expect GPT-4.5 to be 90% cheaper in 1-2 years

The price is not that insane when you remember that GPT-4 cost 36$/million input tokens at launch!

Then please switch for a product made by the EU. Call me when you've read through 300 pages of documentation to discover there was no product.

Microsoft is certainly much better at judging the value of a software than any european administration.

> Which shows that "massive scaling", even enormous, gigantic scaling, doesn't improve intelligence one bit; it improves scope, maybe, or flexibility, or coverage, or something, but not "intelligence".

Do you have any data to support 1. That grok is not more intelligent than previous models (you gave one anecdotal datapoint), and 2. That it was trained on more data than other models like o1 and Claude-3.5 Sonnet?

All datapoints I have support the opposite: scaling actually increases intelligence of models. (agreed, calling this "intelligence" might be a stretch, but alternative definitions like "scope, maybe, or flexibility, or coverage, or something" seem to me like beating around the bush to avoid saying that machines have intelligence)

Check out the technical report of Llama 3 for instance, with nice figures on how scaling up model training does increase performance on intelligence tests (might as well call that intelligence): https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783

> Yea, caring for one another is such a fossilized concept.

Do not conflate "being efficient" that I was suggesting, and "being mean" that I never suggested. I don't think that social security is a bad concept. And anyway we'll probably all need UBI when AIs are more efficient than us at everything. Btw, conflating these two concepts of "efficient" and "mean" is one of the roots of Europe's fall.

> You can make your own module and show how efficient it is before deprecating the old one.

Are you suggesting doing A/B testing with laws? Maybe you were trying again to "put this in [my] language", but your proposal sounds delusional. A country's not a product, you can't have two parallel versions.

Many seem to fear the brutality of these methods. But could massive institutions be reformed continuously by fixing every problem carefully à la Chesterton's Fence ? I think not: admistrations only grow like a cancer until they are such a complicated knot that no one can disentangle them.

See Europe's fossilization, accelerated by the fact that we have put an administration of bureaucrats over countries to add one layer of rules. I'd love a DOGE in Eurppe because our administrations can only be cut brutally, like the Gordian knot. That may destroy some good things, but I'll happily pay that to get rid of the bad things.

That's a good idea! Could be a very nice tool to add to the lib!

Hi all! Aymeric (m-ric) here, maintainer of smolagents and part of the team who built this. Happy to see this interesting people here!

Few points:

- open Deep Research is not a production app, but it could easily be productionized (would need to be faster + good UX).

- As the GAIA score of 55% (not 54%, that would be lame) says, it's not far from the Deep Research score of 67%. It's also not there yet: I think the main point of progress is to improve web browsing. We're working on integrating vision models (for now we've used a text browser developed by the Microsofit autogen team, congrats to them) because it's probably the best way to really interact with webpages.

- Open Deep Research is built on smolagents, a library that we're building, for which the core is having agents that write their actions (tool calls) in code snippets instead of the unpractical JSON blobs + parsing that everyone incl OpenAI and Anthropic use for their agentic/tool-calling APIs. Don't hesitate to go try out the lib and drop issues/PRs!

- smolagents does code execution, which means "danger for your machine" if ran locally. We've railguardeed that a bit with our custom python interpreter, but it will never be 100% safe, so we're enabling remote execution with E2B and soon Docker.

> So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities granted by the corporeal form?

What makes you think that there would be only spirit/soul left in Heaven?

The idea is that people would be there in a "glorified body", a body without decay, suffering, or pain. But a real body!

If anyone's familiar with Christianism they will be also familiar with Pharisians, mentioned probably mentioned more frequently in the New Testament than the old (Jesus often recused their ways)

Hard disagree. His thoughts are so rich and varied that it's harsh to classify them under "blogs for wealthy people". He speaks about death, self worth, many other things that speak to anyone.

This is the most facebook-like (or worse, 9gag-like) of all comments I've read today to be fair.

Then it does not really meet its goal, if it wants to convey the idea that "the true identity is hidden underground" by referring to something that isn't the true identity.

I'v been a lot down the Catacombs, and still go sometimes, but I think you have a too grandiose view of their significance.

Their most ancient existence is as stone carries, the storage of bones only started late, in the XVIIIth century.

They never really held big significance for Parisians.

Source: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carri%C3%A8res_souterraines_...

Why would you want Notre Dame to represent modern condition ? I'm very happy it was not the way you suggest, because that would have been a high risk of getting a ugly/huge/provocative addition by a modern fame-craving architect, à la Le Corbusier or Jean Nouvel.

This is a 1000 years old church that has hosted France's history, not a company office in Manhattan.

Please upload it on the Hugging Face Hub!

I really don't like this growing implication of scientists with political struggles orthogonal to their expertise.

This article criticizes Musk for spreading misinformation that goes against scientific views, in particular on climate change.

DISCLAIMER: I've worked 2 years on climate insurance, as a data scientist tasked with measuring the risks of extreme weather events and how they change with global warming. I've worked on Hurricanes (general name is Tropical Cyclones), Frost, and River flooding.

What are the damning examples of Musks's misinformation cited in the article?

The worst I can find (except for having a jet, which all billionaires do) is under the title "Downplaying the climate emergency", where the article quotes a Guardian article. In there, the most damning thing Musk has said is: "Musk has praised Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur and GOP presidential hopeful, as “a very promising candidate” despite Ramaswamy calling the climate change agenda a hoax. Musk responded to Ramaswamy on X about the climate crisis saying: “It is possibly overstated in the short term, but we should be concerned about it long term.”"

Does that warrant a witch hunt? Is it even false?

Many media like the Guardian (cited many times in her article) like to announce short-term climatic Ragnarok, for instance increased risk of hurricanes[0].

And they cite short-term "limits" like reaching the threshold of 1.5°C additional average global temperature compared to pre-industrial era.

But these media mix up all climate risks in their Ragnarok, which makes their prophecies invalid. For instance on hurricanes: the risk of hurricanes could be REDUCED because of global warming [2] (frequency goes down, intensity goes slightly up).

In fact, as we're nearing the 1.5°C "limit" [1], most of the doom warnings seem to have been invalid, except for precise heat-related risks like droughts and wildfires.

At least until 2024, Musk has been less wrong than the Guardian cited so often by this article. So should we remove this scientist from the Royal Society because she spreads misinformation? Oh well, it's already done.

My point is PLEASE ONLY TRY TO CANCEL PEOPLE UNDER GOOD REASONS, because the perception by Republicans/Right-wingers that Democrats/Ecologists are hysteric is what truly undermines the West's response to climate change.

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-w... [1]: https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/global-temperature-likely-... [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01388-4

You can definitely win war by defending. That's how WW1 played out in France : Verdun, La Somme, etc were all played on French territory, and bled out the German army. Then there was some attacking, but you could imagine that if Ukrainians wreck all attacking Russians in their territory it would be easy for them to push until Russia asks for peace. (But I don't think even full-fledge European help, offense included or not, could help Ukraine achieve that)

I know nothing about chip design. But saying "Applying AI to field X won't work, because X is complex, and LLMs currently have subhuman performance at this" always sounds dubious.

VCs are not investing in the current LLM-based systems to improve X, they're investing in a future where LLM based systems will be 100x more performant.

Writing is complex, LLMs once had subhuman performance, and yet. Digital art. Music (see suno.AI) There is a pattern here.

In my country (France), I think most last-year CS students will not have heard of it (pls anyone correct me if I'm wrong).