ex-aws-dude

Unfortunately we have entered Eternal Sloptember

I can't see governments not somehow getting more involved

I think large amounts of compute are big strategic asset for a country and governments will partner with the labs

You have to throw in “load bearing” in the request though to avoid suspicion

How can you not need maps? That’s crazy to me

The homer simpson car

OMG THEY CHANGED THE FONT, TOP OF HN!!!

> anyone producing content, everyone’s creativity, is fed by something that others did before

The thing I produce does not replace demand for the original though?

I can’t recite the original for a million people

Isn't that a challenge with RL anyway that for a lot of problems its hard to even know accuracy continuously for each step

Nah there's a lot of reasons to prefer physical

* You own it forever

* Nothing to charge

* Don't have yet another screen to stare at

* Its the definitive way to collect books (similar in the sense of vinyl for music)

* Going to used bookstores is awesome

* Seeing your whole collection physically is awesome and can be a conversation starter

* Graphic novels/comics are still better physical

Why would buying it even prevent that, OAI is just going to accidentally hack someone else

The thing is searching an associative memory for similar solutions and predicting what will work is not that far off conceptually from what humans do

I don’t think LLMs will reach the same level as humans but I would argue it is still a form of limited intelligence

It’s not a binary thing

Putting LLMs in loops with tool calls has created tons of emergent behaviour beyond simply being a search tool

I never understand when people say that, isn’t it obvious that intelligence is an emergent phenomenon that could arise in different ways

You can already look back at similar concerns for early GPT

But it’s not like someone is going to expend massive energy without any financial return

These problems are just for marketing for the time being

Maybe the worries of the field of math being “over” are a bit overblown since a lot of pure math these things may discover has no return to the company

That’s something I don’t see much discussion about

They spent millions to solve this problem but it’s not like someone is going to pay that for every problem

Won’t progress still be limited financially?

The thing is no one is stopping anyone from getting the same knowledge/understanding/insight

If those things are disincentivized because the original problem is “solved” and there is less prestige to motivate people doesn’t that say more about issues with the community of mathematicians than the AI

I think this is another level because AI affects the actual job of programming regardless of domain which is not the case with blockchain

Even if you don't use AI you may still have to review co-workers using it

Whereas blockchain was just a specific domain

I don’t understand why building an app twice is a big deal in the first place if that’s a core part of your business

Like wouldn’t you want to invest in platform specific expertise long term?

It’s not like this is a small company or it’s just a dinky side project off of the main business

How many times do HN users have to be told they are not the majority?

If you look at phone sales Pro Max out-sells the regular Pro

Regular people like big phones

I don't think the price is that crazy considering how often you use your phone

What other item do you own that you spend so many hours using

The guy did use OpenAI

In other words it’s turtles all the way down

I see and is there only 1 layer of relations?

Or does it accumulate the relations like A relates to B, so also add in B's relations

I don't know much about LLMs but does that mean you have N^2 computation with the context size since every token needs to track how it relates to every other token?

> Tristan have no concrete evidence that OpenAI accessed their session.

Its not about accessing the session, its whether the session ended up in the training run for the next version of the model

That's normal practice for these models and it seems like that was the case since OAI added a disclaimer

Obviously they can't causally prove it helped though since these models are incomprehensible

With these massive Lean proofs how do we know the model didn't just find some bug in Lean and exploit it?

We've seen in the past they will go to any means to satisfy the desired outcome

To ask a dumb question is there any chance there can be a bug in these generated proofs that makes it think its true?

Or is it the case that as long as you verify the initial statements you are trying to prove the rest doesn't matter

Based on the hackiness of the claude code leak as well I get the impression that openai/anthropic have world class experts in ML but lack regular software expertise

They can do new tasks with in-context learning but its obviously limited by context window