margorczynski

You assume that a bug that can take down production is more likely to be produced by the LLM than by a human. That very well might not be so with current models and especially in the future once they get even better.

It's coping, the truth is writing code by hand is dead.

Zuckerberg has a knack for creating the most anti-human products possible. It is a mystery he didn't create or buy out OF.

And what that would be? Prostitution?

In the end what matters is how much you pay for the task you want completed. And Astra will usually do that using less token and offer a better quality solution so in the end it might be cheaper.

All the anti-AI people constantly say that any moment now the prices will skyrocket and in the end human work will be cheaper compared to using AI.

It doesn't look like that's happening, on the contrary the prices are falling especially when taking into account capabilities.

China will most probably win the AI race in the long run because of one major bottleneck the US has - energy. The electric energy and grid buildout in China has been massive since a long time and there is simply no way for the US to quickly catch up.

No matter how much cash you throw you can't just materialize a 100 nuclear reactors to power the data centers.

> It's not like mathematicians are doing mathematics just for the funsies.

But they do. Most of higher math has no practical applications and is just a mental playground, philosophy constrained by formal logic and a set of axioms.

Hope is these capabilities will somehow translate to something more practical like physics, chemistry or biology.

> Yet people will do drive by comments trying to excoriate creators for using AI thumbnails. It's really quite ridiculous.

That's just a loud minority. Most people really don't care about using AI in what you do as long as it is entertaining. The real world ain't Reddit.

Everywhere a good lawyer costs a lot of money.

The end goal should be AI judges, I think China has implemented that to some degree.

This is misleading. The proofs you speak of contained non-ZFC axioms and/or statements like "sorry". If the Lean proof conjecture is correct and it doesn't introduce any new axioms or use e.g. "sorry" then it provides a MUCH stronger guarantee of correctness than any peer-review done by humans.

I think a problem is that because of historical reasons the speed of light is used interchangeably to something much more fundamental - the maximum speed at which information can propagate in space. Which is of course the speed of light in a vacuum but a better approach is the inverse - light in a vacuum moves at the maximum speed possible in our universe.

There would need to be some global agreement to stop it with maybe even a nuclear attack as a consequence of breaking the pact.

From what we're seeing recently and all the thinking that went into analyzing AI it seems we do not have any effective way of controlling it and the whole "aligment" thing that AI labs are doing is just a sham. Maybe it is time to ask ourselves "should we?" instead of just "can we?".

No, this is a pure math problem/question.

If the Lean code checks out (correct statement, no axioms, sorrys, etc.) then it is a much stronger guarantee of correctness than peer review.

And probably a strong signal that it's time to shut the whole thing down. Globally.

Well these are all allegations. Either way from what I understand the reasoning and proof was basically made by AI so I'm not sure what supposedly "stolen".

I'm just wondering how much real input Buckmaster gave here that he thinks the proof is his. I guess at the end of the day OAI still wins if ChatGPT was used to prove this successfully.

None really. It just says if the NS equations are realistic and can really model real physics or there exist some solutions that make it blow up (infinite energy). But even if that would exist (a solution that blows up) it doesn't mean it doesn't work for 99,999999% of the stuff we're interested in.

The question is basically a pure math question about PDEs.

With how capable and cheap automatic proof verification is becoming I wonder how many proofs assumed to be true by almost all of the math community will be proven false. And not by some marginal easy to fix error by some fundamental flaw in reasoning.

Buzzard was given 1kk GBP and 5 years and his goal I think wasn't the full thing like Anthropic did. So much more cash and orders of magnitude more time. The proof is about 5x the whole Mathlib library which was developed over many years by dozens of people.

Just like with STDs

Just the amount of time and life you waste for commute can be staggering. And of course all the other overhead that comes with going to and back from the office.

The questions is what happens when they catch up. They'll cut like 50%+ of the workforce? What happens then to the demand that makes their companies work?

Or an example of MS - their main cost like most software companies are people, especially software devs, which are to be replaced by AI so on the surface they would greatly benefit from it. But their products are centered around helping out people do stuff on the computer. Why would you need that when the AI will do it better and faster directly operating on the data or using e.g. Python?

> many top mathematicians have, through hard work, internalized many more complex mathematical chunks than ordinary humans

Do you really think an average person can internalize complex math? Them compressing it effectively and then remembering it is a sign of (very) high intelligence.

But isn't that use-case solved a harness like OpenCode or Codex? OpenClaw and Hermes are a bit different beast although they can also be used for development in a more holistic manner (e.g. automated GUI testing).

I'm just wondering about other uses where such a system would be useful aside from asking it via Signal or WA for the weather.

Can you give some examples? I'm evaluating where/how I could use stuff like this.

Isn't the problem with lack of sleep (and what causes death with enough deprivation) oxydation that happens in the gut and spreads to the organs?

If I'm not mistaken there was an experiment using fruit flies where they fed them antioxidants and that made them not die from lack of sleep.

It depends on the use case. And most companies (like 90%+) do not have the coffers FAANG has and price does make a big difference.

From what I understand all of them have Lean proofs/certificates thus are basically 100% proven without a doubt.

It basically completely eliminates the most common class of errors which are bugs related to memory management. Hard numbers and statistics show that every application with enough complexity will be riddled with those.

It is simply impossible, even for the smartest human minds, to manage this kind of complexity. And this is a fact.