There are already a bunch of people putting LLMs out there with loops to try to achieve a goal by exploring around. That can include them to instructing other other LLMs.

"They" (whoever they are - it includes small children messing around with OpenClaw) have no idea what they instructed the LLMs to do.

Getting the toast actually brown but not burnt, and getting both the different sides of a bagel right actually sounds like a real valid use for AI. I think it's a proper hard problem, as the failure of various toasters with browning sensors shows clearly. My only fear is hallucinations leading to house fires.

I guess you are probably right, however there's a comment on your twitter thread:

Look in the training data and confirm/deny that Buckmaster's data is or isn't in there. Until you do that, it's very very hard to trust anything OAI says or does.

and until you see that and compare also with his and other mathematicians unpublished work, which might be where the more advanced proof came f you cannot be 100% sure. Their refusal to publish the inputs, including all of the training data they used for this model together with its sources, is a big problem.

No. There are many mathematicians (N) and there are probably many more opinions about why they do math, with "because it's fun" or "because I read about the notes in the margin and always wondered if I could be the one" probably at least as common as "understanding the world". If you want to understand the world you become a physicist, a biologist or, if you are young and naive a sociologist.

Plain paper mathematics is not like, for example, physics or sociology. The resources you need for much of it are much smaller and are at the level that it's reasonable for universities to give people just for being good at what they do, not because of the value they give humanity. There's a good history of people doing research entirely for their own pleasure and entertainment and that turning out later to be useful, often contrary to their own explicit wishes (look up the history of matrices). Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just because one such person has a bit of a tantrum.

Ultimately it won't matter either way. Open source models will get better. They don't even need to achieve absolute parity with the frontier models they just need to get to 'good enough for most tasks most normies need to do'.

Some of them are probably already knocking on the door of that, and where they fail the frontier models often do as well.

Even if GenAI has dramatically increasing your business productivity, $100 a month per white collar workers becomes a pretty big expense item on the balance sheet pretty quickly. GPUs get better and cheaper all the time, eventually the market will deliver memory at reasonable costs again.. Hardware under the desk is usually cheaper than hardware behind the glass or in the cloud. Especially as the upgrade cycle has stretched from 2 years to 5 and longer. The open models get better, the GPUs get a few more compute units, in some not so distant future 32 of VRAM becomes such that it fits in $`000 price target Graphics/AI Accelerator package...even if that turns the $300 mini PCs you are putting in the cubes into $1300 dollar mini PCs, well if you get a least a year of use out them its cheaper than general Claude subscription.

Given the cloud AI boys can't make money at that price point now, it should be clear the model of selling everyone and the brother a subscription isnt realistic. It is going to make more sense for most people to 'own something'.

This is not say if you hosting some server with agents, or doing very specialized engineer or medical work as as opposed to more general office work Cloud AI won't be the sensible path forward. It very well could be, probably will be. If on the other hand your job is cleaning up the South East Region P&L spreedsheet for the your chain of HVAC dealers probably not so much; or if you're a home maker need to work up Dinosar birthday invites for little Tommy's sixth..

I think there is room to argue though, that distillation might violate copyright while training on large volumes of large material does not.

At that point you are modeling a model. I think you could argue that it is a bit like copying a novel where you hand type it; adding lots of typographical errors a long the way; get laze and leave out a chapter or two that you don't feel moves the story a long much, then slap a new title on a call it your own.

I don't think any court anywhere would say did not violate the original authors copyright. This is why we have courts someone has to effectively make an analog for events that happen that reflect existing laws and convince a jury or at least a judge that analog is correct. As much as everyone wants to believe that is some kind of perfect deterministic process, but not really. If it was we would not have appellate courts, and the SCOTUS would never reverse itself.

Honestly about the only compelling argument for how these cases will go; IMHO is that "Si Valley Bros have a lot of cash to spend on lawyers, more than most of the plaintiffs or defendants they might face; that is usually favorable."

I do honestly believe courts usually get it right, They are run by well educated people who are genuinely gifted at absorbing information quickly in most cases. I think we can see this in complex cases where we have expertise; think about the Google implementing Java APIs case for example or the SCO's nonsense copyright claims on Linux. Despite enormous effort and resource commitment to cloud the issues, the courts saw thru the BS cloud. What is important there though is those cases were broadly speaking not new territory, the arguments and key decision points of law were well known.

AI models likely represent a need to invent new "legal tests" and frankly I don't see how anyone can be certain what the outcomes will be.

Around 2029 we'll see that a ride is available for $16 or $31 with a driver.

Rider's choice. I'll guess it goes about 80/20.

He seems like a real scumbag but it's worth keeping in mind that the people who told us that have a massive incentive to pin their crimes on a scapegoat.

Since we pretty much know that FTX was the #1 donor to a party's political action committee with money laundered through Ukraine, he would have been smarter to wait for that conflict to conclude.

The people who benefited from the crime also prosecuted him which is never reliable.

It might not be FedSlop but unless it is proven that both parties didn't benefit we shouldn't trust this government either.

We do know that Ladybug Graham got $18M straight into his bank account from Ukraine so there is certainly smoke.

It's only since a dead man can't sue for libel that people are willing to print that nugget now.

Not in a Corporate Democracy.

The people who would prosecute OpenAI want to use OpenAI to maximize their power and wealth at your financial and legal expense.

Remember when they tried to extradite Gary McKinnon for twenty years for looking at a spreadsheet when he accidentally got RDP access to an unsecured NASA desktop with a simple Perl script? Intent is not relevant for prosecutors (mens rea should be an element in a Constitutional case).

The legal basis is there but the will to power is not.

Two systems of courts for different classes of people (yet again). It would be an error to call that a Justice System.

n.b. the Culture War psyop is there to try to convince you that the classes are something else.

They are running out of money. Their costs have exceeded the revenue for a long time, and the Anthropic is pretty clearly winning the product delivery race.

Altman is just spreading BS in the hope he can maybe get others to take their foot of the throttle, so he stop using gas he does not have.

Anthropic and X have an opportunity here to break OpenAI once and for all and I hope they do; the world will be better off with Altman out of influence.

That was long post to say "I have no understanding of evangelical Protestantism."

  This is not say there are not a number self described evangelical Protestants who also have as little understanding. These are better described as 'cultural-christian' with lower case Cs, as they have never read a Bible either.

However there is no Christian sect / organization with any significant following that believes anything like what you described there. If anything it sounds more like you're writing about Islam.

Railed against Trump online, making Right wing American's mad and ensuring that they went out and voted for him thus destroying much of the oil based economy. There's an honest shift to solar energy in East Asia driven by the Iran crisis that would never have happened without this fortuitous turn of events. China had a massive overproduction of solar panels to the extent that even with the new situation they still have too many for the companies to be profitable. Large amounts of this production have now been saved from immediate bankruptcy.

All caused by angry right wingers.

There are corrections to gravity that include the current size of the Universe as s term that gives extremely small differences in calculations but explains most observations.

It has a certain allure from an Information Theory perspective and is extremely parsimonious in ask.

But funding is for finding wimps and axons and evidence of mysteries that use the old equations so you are called crazy if your simple theory threatens that gravy train.

Some people say useful physics is too dangerous to fund and we're better off wasting time and money.

Twenty years ago Dark Energy seemed like a good idea to me. So did Supersymmetry. Most new ideas that can be tested and used or disproved probably should be. That LHC found no Supersymmetric pairs is a good thing.

Apologies to the original.

https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09...