We do, actually, but they're far too small and far too unreliable to pose a current threat. That said, with something like the Internet, which takes decades to upgrade core components, if you wait until the problem exists before you try to solve it, you're gonna be in trouble.

It's still possible that quantum computers will never be practical, but there's been significant progress over the last few years that makes it seem like it probably will happen. If you have anything that relies on asymmetric cryptography and you still want it to be secure in 20 years, you might want to start looking into post-quantum algorithms now.

Got any evidence that that's what's going on? And why would it even be necessary? The massive demand for GPUs and RAM for AI data centers is clear. How would that possibly not raise prices?

I think you were far from alone in that. The comments on the article about Anthropic relaxing their safety commitment showed a lot of people thought it was DoD-related.

Who is cheating, lying to and manipulating us, and how? I don't see any of that. I see normal market dynamics: Demand has dramatically outstripped supply, so prices have gone up. This will prompt suppliers to build out capacity to meet supply -- and the massive profits they're receiving from the high prices will fund that buildout. But of course it will take time, so stuff's going to be very expensive for a while.

That's what I see. What "cheating, lying and manipulation" do you see?

The Gulf War had a lot of friendly fire deaths from the US ignoring any beacon signal and just killing anything they saw.

Do you seriously think their automated systems (built by people of precisely this mentality) will be any better?

They really didn't. I don't have to look it up because I was a Google employee at the time and had access to the employee handbook and other documentation.

The problem is that you're looking for a kind of solution that doesn't exist. There probably isn't now any undergraduate math problem that AI can't do, and if there is, there soon won't be. Trying to find kinds of problems that students can do but AI can't is fruitless.

The only answer is to get students to understand why they really need to do the work themselves -- and it's the same reason that they need to learn integration by parts even though the CAS can do it far faster and more accurately -- because learning develops their minds. And, for the students who are unwilling to understand, test them on it in a context where they can't rely on AI: Pencil and paper tests in a room free of any sort of electronics.

Well, at least we can say for sure what it isn't: Letting an AI do your homework.

Not saying an AI can't have a place in learning. Using it like an advanced search machine to gather data, etc. that's pretty cool. AI is going to replace search soon - until the SEO dudes figure out how to fuck it all over again.

The main problem is that school never teaches you the meta-skills. It never tells you WHAT FOR you are learning all this shit. That nobody really gives a shit in 10 years if you remember the date of that battle or the name of that king. But the ability to put together a number of events in history into a whole story, that will come in handy.

I hated every hour of Latin in school. It took 20 years before I realized that thanks to it I can understand bits and pieces in Italian, Spanish and half a dozen other languages despite never having had a single lesson in them.

We are in such deep shit, "trouble" wouldn't even BEGIN to describe it.

Gross profits are low right now, and net profits are negative.

After a huge drop in customers, we are slowly gaining a few back, and while profitability is still negative, last quarter was slightly better then the one before.

How come that lawmakers behave as if they were never kids or can't remember how they themselves considered any and all "stay out, you're not old enough" measures a challenge to overcome?

Especially if it's a machine, which lacks the common sense of, you know, the dumbest door bitch who would take one look at you and say "I don't give a fuck what your fake ID here says, you're at most 15 and you're not going in".

They didn't flip flop. They changed their position on one aspect of AI security, while holding the line on a different aspect. It's like if you decided that you were willing to leave your car doors unlocked, but refused to leave your house unlocked. Different things, different risk calculations.

Common sense is neither common, nor sense.

Back your assertions up with data.

I don't think so. Today's LLMs can actually solve stuff like this.

Seriously, come up with a problem it can't have seen.

Just for fun I grabbed my old calculus book, flipped to a chapter, looked at the exercises and grabbed one that was a word problem. I then fed it to Claude. Here's the result: https://claude.ai/share/5909de...

That isn't a great example because it's too "canned". You could probably find exactly this problem online. But that doesn't actually matter. Come up with a more creative, unique one that the LLM won't have seen verbatim but is within the capabilities of an average (or even above average) freshman taking a college calculus course, and the LLM will solve it handily.

I don't think there is any homework that is AI proof. If the kids can do it, the AI can do it. Hell, the AI can probably do it better than the teacher.

Yeah, good luck writing a basic calculus word problem that frontier AI models can't do today.

Seriously, give it a shot and I'll feed it to a few models.