Now now, don't be sensible. They can't exploit a perceived differential in capacity if you're sensible and point out that agents are only useful in what turn out to be inherently unsafe situations... it's almost like the whole point was to be able to have someone smarter than oneself take care of the scary things, and blame them if we don't succeed without effort.

It's sort of an interesting admission from the management class about how they already treat technical staff, if you look at it from the right angle.

There is no safeguard that will be effective here. They can't be more creative than people who have experiences they haven't considered, and the risk isn't just from people with intent.
It is not meaningful to say 'safeguards' or 'guardrails' over and over. These things are abstract ideas that, while they are necessary for the current commercial conceptualisation of how AI should work... the universe is not obligated to create.
It is similarly not meaningful to call the output a 'hallucination' when it follows pathways that don't lead you to a personally pleasing answer.

The thing is... we've known this since the late 70s, in the math... and it's been reconfirmed over and over. And understanding the math... the reasons why are completely obvious.

This is a grift that relies on the grifters not being held responsible because they couldn't have known better. Don't let them tell you that they couldn't have known better.

Demanding that a collaborator be removed from a paper so they can take his place is certainly already academic misconduct.

Bubek appears to have admitted to academic misconduct and an attempt at intimidation, and he somehow thought "but actually I walked it back immediately/I wasn't really serious" was sufficient defense. He also seems to claim that he was the one who initiated contact... which makes the problem worse, not better.

None of that has anything to do with whether or not an AI did anything new, unique or special.

This makes sense until you learn their capital expenditure is increasing at a relative rate, meaning that they're making an even bigger loss off of those profits.

not even deeply disappointing, just mundane old disappointing.

The Millenium prizes weren't about massive impressive computational achievements, and true to form this counterexample is actually useless for actual Navier-Stokes sims, provides zero efficiency gains, doesn't even preclude input ranges that anyone would actually use, etc.

The prizes were set at that level with the idea that the prize money was small enough to encourage individual mathematicians to engage with these problems, or encourage non-mathematicians to seriously engage with math. They were small enough that it was judged that larger corporations wouldn't engage with them because the problems themselves weren't really anything they could profit off directly without also contributing to their competitors.

It is typical of OpenAI's lack of strategic foresight that they'd tell people in the press release that they spent $20 million dollars for a $1 million dollar prize. They just wanted to tick a box, and again true to form they completely devalued the achievement in the process.

even without the Carlin quote, why would I want an average person to do specialist work?

I, too, can structure a metric to tell me what I want to hear and tell the customer that their own identity and motivations are wrong.

I don't expect that to increase sales. Or productivity. Or efficiency.

Science isn't about your morals or what you think is proper or worth being smug about.

If someone's approach upsets you, aren't you holding your feelings above the facts?

just out of interest... where does the boundary around "social media" stop?

This isn't capitalism. It's closer to mercantilism.

do you have a link to a case that definitively establishes that AI training is legally transformative?

If there's an actual mechanism to this outcome for him, it's the inverse of what you seem to think.

He's over invested in new data centers that are all taking longer to build than projected, has debt to service because of that that he needs the AI companies to pay for, and they have not yet demonstrated that they can actually be profitable enough to ever do that.

It occurs to me that this isn't the first time he's tried to do that during this administration. Look up the Cartel Marque and Reprisal Reauthorization Act from December last year.

I'm not sure that doing these folks the favor of assuming there must be rational thought behind their assertions is the right strategic move.