bonplan23

Typically something is "objectively" the case if there is indisputable evidence for it (of which you provided none).

... zero concerns about LLMs wiping out humanity. But world models based on JEPA totally will! Please come invest in my company ... :)

I think we will soon reach a point where code won't be considered secure unless AI has written or at least verified it. Company policies may then even consider that bad practice and/or forbid it.

If an entirely new problem, within a new field of mathematics were to appear tomorrow, I highly doubt a human mathematician would be useful at all on their own.

Just to be clear: It was well known that you can reach such scores with small models and without an LLM if you train on the task. The author highlights those models himself - e.g. HRM/TRM.

The novelty is more that it works with such a plain transformer and low compute price.

"Someone" literally did that (+/- 2 years): https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-68677-4

I think it was supposed to be a more useful term than the earlier and more common "Strong AI". With regards to strong AI, there was a widely accepted definition - i.e. passing the Turing Test - and we are way past that point already: ( see https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.23674 )

Nice that LLMs can now argue to defend themselves. This is what gemini 3 thinks about its mistake and I find it perfectly valid:

"If you tell a human a joke they think they know, they often stop listening to the setup and jump to the punchline."

And when we say "stop listing" we don't actually mean that they shut their ears, but that they activate a once established neural shortcut - just as the LLM did.

Interestingly the THW also operates the "virtual operations support team" (VOST). This group of volunteers is monitoring social media and detecting fake news with specialized software in order to aid crisis relief efforts. https://www.thw.de/SharedDocs/Meldungen/DE/Einsaetze/nationa...