cman1444

Your assumption that AI will lead to more scarcity is interesting. I believe that it, like most technologies, will result in more abundance overall.

I don't really see why Europe would be special in this regard. I would bet on a non-frontier, late-moving american or chinese company taking on this role before a european one.

Unless there is documentation that both parties understood the agreement to be something other than is in the contract, or if it's clear that there is a clerical error. For example, prior emails that show different numbers or a hugely under/over market numbers.

I unironically agree with most of these points.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The headline's usage of the term "forecasting" is not referring to weather forecasting, or climate forecasting. It's referring to forecasting a wide range of possible future events.

For example, predicting which party will win an election, or if there will be a major cyber event in the next year, or the price of Gold in 6 months. Presumably a few of the questions could be related to climate as you're thinking of.

I don't understand your analogy. Are you just suggesting that luck plays too large a role in this contest? Clearly there is some "skill" or ability factor because AI's have been scoring higher and higher each year. Also, they make reference to superforecaster humans, who are presumably consistently better at forecasting than their peers.

Are you referring specifically to climate as in weather? The article is about forecasting a range of future events, not specifically weather.

I keep seeing people repeat that the goal of math is "understanding".

I do think that is one goal of math but I don't think it's the only one.

I think an additional goal is simply "truth", which can be found without understanding as we've seen with these human-incomprehensible proofs.

Yet another is practical applications. While there's less of these in pure mathematics than in most domains, they do still exist.

Is it really such an extraordinary claim to say that they could have solved the problem without copying Buckmaster and Alpoge? It seems very much in the realm of possibilities.

To me, it seems just as extraordinary to claim that they did "cheat". If I were a betting man, I would put the odds around 50/50 from everything I've read on the subject.

But my point is that everyone seems to be presuming guilt.

It seems a perfectly reasonable possibility that Navier-Stokes is just the most easily solvable of the remaining problems, and that their new model is capable of solving it while not being capable of solving the others.

There's many cases of researchers racing to solve various problems after hearing that others are working on them. I don't think anyone's suggesting that it was a coincidence at all. In fact, OpenAI freely admits that they started working on the problem after hearing rumours that others were close to solving it. To me, that's not evidence of "cheating" in any way.

You forgot possibility 3: OpenAI solved the problem without using any private training data from the two researchers.

Everyone in this thread seems to have made up their mind about OpenAI's guilt though.

>For other workers: wages may increase on paper, but not really for actual purchasing power.

This is not necessarily a conclusion you can draw from that statement. It's possible that as the economic pie grows, workers' purchasing power increases compared to the counterfactual (a non-AI world), but their purchasing power does not increase as much as the capital owners' does.

No. As I said, the long-term gains are mixed-to-positive. And, all else being equal, you would rather have more short term job gains than none at all.

Except, so far, this isn't actually what happens. I listened to Moody's "Inside Economics" podcast with Ramp's Chief Economist, and they observe that companies who adopt AI intensively actually hire 10% more people. Also, this article from The Economist suggests that evidence is mixed-to-positive for long term employment, while short term data center buildout is extremely positive for jobs. Paywalled unfortunately.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/09/04/t...

Because he works for Anthropic. Supposedly this project was not part of his official capacity as an employee of theirs.

However, if they had published first, it's hard to imagine Anthropic not taking the opportunity to claim "our employee solved this Millennium prize problem using our AI".

Where did the veil lift? This feels like a witch-hunt to me.

Even if true, I don't see why this is an issue. Are they not allowed to work on problems others are working on? Did Anthropic get first dibs on this problem? Competition is good. And I don't exactly have tons of sympathy when the other side is just a leading AI lab. It's not like it's some scholar who dedicated his life to this problem.

If we accept that it is a proof then it does improve human knowledge, even if no one can understand how to get there.

If you were navigating a pitch dark cave, wouldn't you find it useful to be able to see the light of the cave opening even if it's not bright enough to illuminate your path to it?

Would it be more reasonable to take images from movies and create worlds of various IPs?

My first thought is a detailed Hogwarts that is fully explorable using scenes from the movies (or even descriptions from the books?)

How do you know they didn't go over it?

The big question is if there are larger economic gains to be made from ever greater intelligence. It seems to me like that may be the case for only a select few hard problems, while the vast majority of tasks approach their economic ceiling asymptotically with intelligence.

This is a needless qualifier for the argument at hand.

A proof can just be "assuming these axioms.....the area of a triangle is X"

So then it sounds like you agree that math has additional utility beyond just human comprehension.

If I understand you correctly, you're just qualifying that that will only be the case when AGI exists. To be clear, I actually disagree with you here because I think it's very plausible to find a use case for human-incomprehensible math proofs before AGI exists. I'm just saying it sounds like you're agreeing with the parent comment that math is not purely about human comprehension.

Surely there are cases where a user could request child sexual content without it being technically criminal. For example, sexually suggestive clothing/content that is not complete nudity.

Isn't that what the antagonists mentioned in the article are for?

>Orexin receptor agonism was thought to be a mechanism of modafinil/armodafinil.

The article seems to imply this is not the case. Do you have a source that says that Orexin agonism is the mechanism of action for modafinil?

Could you please share this spreadsheet? I would really love to have my own version of this.

Very case dependent of course. There are loads of small towns that have stagnant or shrinking populations all across the US.

Shhhhh, it's way more fun to spout cynical and clever quips about a publication without backing it up with any reasoning.

Why?