generalizations

We already established precedent (Biden election results disputes) that we don't get to question how fair the elections are.

You're making ad hominem comments about me; your argument about the degrees is making some heavy assumptions that such things won't be massively changed by AI.

And you're taking the pencil comment weirdly literally, like it apparently went completely over your head. We're clearly talking past each other. I don't see any purpose to talking about this further.

It's interesting because it clarifies that the problem here isn't the kid's education; the 'problem' is that teachers and colleges are upset that they are no longer offering something valuable.

The kids are fine; the rent seekers aren't.

And to your larger point: the entire university/graduate/lab/scientific system was created to formalize what was originally citizen scientists trying to understand the world from their basements. Scientific journals are just a formalization of nerds writing letters to each other about what they figured out. Consider from first principles how much of what exists now actually still serves that original purpose.

You want it to be a jobs program? Sounds good. Take their computers away and make them use pencils and you can create even more jobs.

You want to do science? Figure out how to do science. You want the kids to learn? Figure out how to teach them.

Just don't protect a jobs program under the guise of something nobler.

Of course what's interesting is that when viewed from the perspective of 'I have a kid and I'm willing to orchestrate their education myself', AI means the kid can get an education unheard-of even ten years ago. Personal, genius-level tutor, expert in any subject in which the kid can muster a question.

The only people really having a crisis here are teachers who want to feel relevant.

That's only relevant insofar as it can be a long time before the commercial viability is realized or apparent.

If an AI can make 100 commercially unviable discoveries (for now) on its way to each immediately commercially viable discovery, that's great - bank them in the discovery library for later.

Still doesn't mean we need mathematicians doing everything with pencils instead.

Very cool. Did you also try using the karpathy autoresearch? How do you think this compares?

So it begins.

Less so, here.

That crowd is moved to X these days, in my experience. HN became mostly the folks who didn't notice.

Projects like this probably need a dedicated noob-fork where 'anything goes', so the noobs feel like they're contributing but where their blast radius is contained.

And once in a blue moon something good comes out of it back to the real project.

Problem is, that's a hardware problem. Try asking Apple nicely to open their ecosystem; the appropriate expected response is, bring your own phone.

That being said, I do actually expect that this stuff will (generally*) stay on-device. Apple's oddly good about that.

"We"?

Very cool. As a confirmed cheapskate, the first thing I did was check the cheap ones; but I noticed there was no information about the reliability of the providers - how long they were in business, how likely they'd ghost in two months, etc. Not sure if that information is even available or easy to obtain, but having made similar price comparison sites, thought the feedback on what I looked for first might be useful.

It's the first iteration of what will eventually be an on-device Siri/openclaw that not only has full access to your messages/docs/emails/life, but also has live audio access to what's going on around you.

Remember, this is all running via local models on-device.

This is how Siri/openclaw can hear you make plans for lunch, then add it to the calendar before you open your phone.

> similar developments in other scientific domains

The classifier is too strict. It's rare to be able to complete a project without being permanently relegated to Opus. I'd expect that the domains where this accelerates progress will be fairly limited.

How hard is it to get access to the Anthropic Cybersecurity program? That’s gotta be rough.

> a government supplied app, that’s guaranteed to protect my privacy

[citation needed]

I imagine because quality of transcription is what matters.

They just know they can't afford the power right now to do it. They would if they thought they could get away with it.

Presumably a deepswe benchmark, which IIRC puts GLM 5.2 between opus 4.8 and fable.

Hoping that one day they'll let me go through the identity verification process so I can use it again.

Tried to upgrade my subscription, triggered identity verification, verification fails to even start, and now I can't even use the subscription tier I'd already paid for.

This is the BBC, of course they're going to support the official position.

Just put it online somewhere

> a movement now remembered for an over-reaction to often imaginary enemies

I'm sure it felt very real at the time.

From Plato's Phaedrus, on the invention of writing:

Theuth: "This invention, O king, will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered."

Thamus replied: "Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess. For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them.

You have discovered an elixir not of memory but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise."

Which is to say: "All this has happened before, and will happen again."

I didn't say they succeeded, I said they had no option but to try.

NPUs were pushed by Microsoft, who saw the writing on the wall: AI like chatgpt will dominate the user's experience, edge computing is a huge advantage in that regard, and Apple's hardware can do it. NPUs are basically Microsoft trying to fudge their way to a llamacpp-on-Apple-Silicon experience. Obviously it failed, but they couldn't not try.

They said this:

> Even a normal spreadsheet is fairly complex beast. But the novel thing about bidicalc is the backwards solver. Mathematically, updating a spreadsheet "backward" is a (potentially underdetermined) root finding problem, because we are trying to find a vector of unknowns such that , where F is the function computed by the cells formulas, and G is the objective value entered in the cell. Note that F is not necessarily a single formula, but the result of composing an upstream graph of cells into a single function.

> The actual root-finding solver is a custom algorithm that I made. It a general purpose algorithm that will find one root of any continuous-almost-everywhere function for which a complete syntactic expression is known. It uses a mix of continuous constraint propagation on interval union arithmetic , directional Newton's method and dichotomic search. It is of course limited by floating point precision and available computation time.

But that really doesn't answer your question. I see no reason why the solver wouldn't decide every time it had a two-variable summation that ADD(X+Y) doesn't reverse to X=-90 and Y=100.

Upvoted but felt bad for not replying. Yeah, I initially read it as a generic "big corps exploiting open source devs" take as well. Not often someone actually says "whoops you're right" so kudos - not sure I would've done the same.

The article is an interesting philosophical situation where you know the intent is good. But maybe, they took it too far without any of the necessary caveats.

No, I did not. From the article. This is, unfortunately, a straightforward case of poorly-considered moralizing with extremely bad consequences.

> Overall, these ideas lead me to believe that the open source movement needs to see itself as in a larger social context. Can we shift the balance of power away from massive companies and their massive harms? Can we prevent Nazis from using our software? Should we even try?

> I know my goal: shift the default in open source from “it’s free for anyone to use” to “please don’t use this if you’re evil”. I don’t just want to do this for my little project; I want to slowly change the discourse. I’m not sure how to do that effectively, if it’s even possible.