851–860 of 1001 posts
As I have stated before, AI will win a fields medal before it can manage a McDonald's A difficult part was constructing a chess board on which to play math (Lean). Now it's just pattern recognition and computation. LLMs are just the beginning, we'll see more specialized math AI resembling StockFish soon.
our local AI models are already capable of running McDonalds.
You'd think a billion dollar company would be able to normalize the sound level on their video :/
The summarized chain of thought for this task (linked in the blogpost) is 125 pages. That's an insane scale of reasoning, quite akin to what Anthropic has been teasing with Mythos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not in academia myself, and I think AI solving all our problems ASAP is ideal, even if it means no humans get attribution. What I’m saying is that the ultimate goal of those in power are not these sorts of altruistic or even scientific pursuits, and that the massive labor disruption and hyper concentration of power in the hands of those who are proving time and again that advancement of science and benefiting the…
Oh good. But I think you're over estimating the 'concentration of power', and under estimating 'benefiting the whole of humanity' Most homeless people have smartphones, and consistent access to food and clean water. Your average 'poor person' in America has HVAC. An unimaginable luxury in the EU
Lmao, did HN just glitch out and start showing me Pieter Levels' tweets?
The proof brings unexpected, sophisticated ideas from algebraic number theory to bear on an elementary geometric question. The more I read about these achievements the more I get a feeling that a lot of the power of these models comes from having prior knowledge on every possible field and having zero problems transferring to new domains. To me the potential beauty of this is that these tools might help us break thro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These all are valid, noble points I also used to brood about while being young and financially supported by my parents.
> These all are valid, noble points I also used to brood about while being young and financially supported by my parents. Ah, the proverbial silver spoon. Sadly, I never had that luxury. If you look through my comments, you'll notice I'm more at the get-off-my-lawn point. Also, what happened? Real world wear you down and turn you cynical? It is possible to be hopeful and cynical at the same time. This tech is somethi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, it is proven that if you need to count things, the only thing you can discover/invent is the natural numbers.
Really?! Care to cite a reference to that proof?
If you were to dig deeper, you'd get to the murky philosophical depths of foundations of mathematics, but I prefer to not go there. Practically, if you want to reliably count something, you end up with the natural numbers (or, maybe, their subset that ultrafinitists are trying to formalize).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, I've seen this mindset a lot lately... The answer is that we simply need to decouple the "right to exist" from "worth." You should have the right to exist and explore the world simply because you're human, not because you can use your skills to provide some sort of transactional value to someone else. Deprogramming so many people is going to be hard...
All sane and noble in theory, but in practice, how do you see that happening? Let's start with the first practical step: how do you dethrone the psychopaths in charge of the world who own about everything on Earth and have all the world's lethal force in their pockets?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's already how civilization works. There's no one person that knows everything about (say) modern food production, from top to bottom. If it ever stopped working (because too much knowledge was lost somehow), most people would die. And yet the system seems fairly resilient. Mostly, only local knowledge ever seems to be necessary to keep the whole thing running. Super-intelligence (or even just super-normal-intell…
> There's no one person that knows everything about (say) modern food production True, but it is possible to assemble a team of people that does, with backup for each person. There's also teachers and written knowledge to educate new team members. That's what makes it resilient. I think that's a very different situation from what's decribed.
The idea being that once a toolchain becomes sufficiently complex if you ever have to bootstrap it again for whatever reason you won't be able to speedrun the process the way you might naively expect. I think modern chip production likely already reached this point several decades ago. As evidence I'll point out that China only recently achieved EUV and remains several nodes behind despite directing an obscene amount of resources towards the initiative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You lost me at “except billionaires”. I don’t see how Jeff Bezos benefits from this one much more than let’s say Terence Tao. Can a tech news stay a tech news, without getting bombardes with leftist subtexts all the time?
Billionaires are going to benefit from AI at the expense of everyone else. That's not leftist ideology, that's just a fact. That's happened with every technology that's ever been created. It happened with the industrial revolution. Why would it be different this time?