True, but it's almost always faster than the flow of electrons...well, if it goes at all.

They're both quite different from the US, but saying they're about the same is both weird and wrong. The Chinese are rebuilding the imperium, which was sometimes good and sometimes quite bad. The Russians...they seem to be in the process of destroying their country. The reports I have heard are now a couple of decades old, but they indicated that they country was largely run by non-government-based gangs.

No. But Cornish, however...

Well, Apple *appears* to be doing the right things. This may be accurate, but don't feel too certain.

> I wonder how many problems they tried before they solved one successfully.

Was gonna mod Insightful, but the replies aren't getting it.

"Solving this problem cost $2000."

That may be true.

"We tried to solve 50 problems at $2000 each and one was successfully solved."

This can also be true which means:

"We spent $100K and we solved one open problem."

which is fiscally, but not akshually, the same as:

"We spent $100K to solve one problem."

If Astra is "all that", OpenAI should have a pricing tier, "no charge unless the problem is solved."

Now *that* would be an impressive vote of confidence and everybody should be excited about it.

So your mistake is thinking they're all alike. (Unless that was sarcasm or other humor.)

That's not really true. Consider the ABC proof. It is probably valid, but it uses math that almost nobody who is an English speaker can check. The author is currently translating it into a form that can be read by LEAN (an automated proof-checker). If it passes LEAN, there still won't be many mathematicians who can understand it.

I *think* a lot of those claims are unverified PR announcements by Chinese companies. They *MAY* be correct, but I tend to doubt PR announcements.

So far the evidence seems to indicate that they're still using as many high-level NVidia chips as they can get. I suspect research is being reported as developed systems. If the reports (understood in that light) are accurate, your estimate is correct, but your timeline is off by perhaps 5 years.

IIUC, the proof is verified by Lean, which is NOT an AI, but is rather a deterministic proof checker, and highly trusted.

Sorry, but that's not what reasoning models are doing. Don't trust the logs as accurate traces of their thinking.

OTOH, since the output is a proof, you don't need to even consider the log. Just check the proof, and (if properly formulated) there are deterministic methods of doing that.

Saying 1,0 *is* an integer is false. It converts to an integer. Whether it equals an integer depends on how you represent floats...though in every implemented system I'm aware of 1.0 does convert to 1. However saying 1.0 is within epsilon of 1 is true for every floating point system using a normal meaning of epsilon.

OTOH, they didn't use up the AI in solving the problem, so it's still there to be used for something else. So you can't really count all the cost of building an training it against a problem that it solved as a test of its capabilities.

Actually you've got a pretty good guess that the problems are quire hard, and a reasonable chance that they are indeterminate (unless they involve a finite subsection of math).

AI call taking seems to be getting to be more common and, I guess, very inexpensive.

My plumber (one man and a truck full of tools out working on his own) has an AI answering his phone now. I called him a while back and a woman answered the phone. Ok, I thought, must be his wife answering the phone. She asked what I needed and said that she will pass the information on, then asked a further question that was related to what I had said but that was worded too... "formally", I suppose, for the subject under discussion (an outstanding order for air conditioner part that I was had called for an update on) and I suddenly realized that it's not a person I'm talking to.

And this is a one-man plumbing operation, not a big corporate entity.

Again, this is one guy

I see some of these CVE's are fixed in trixie but not bookworm 6.1.177-1 (yet).

Still other CVE's are fixed in bookworm but not yet in trixie. Seems like a few reboots are in the offing.

First time I've seen several fixes in oldstable before stable. It must be a wild week over there. n.b. fixed, not 'not vulnerable'.

Glad the oldstable crew is hard at work!