According to some sources, the "independent" evaluators are pretty much family and cult members of those training the models.

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and until you see that and compare also with his and other mathematicians unpublished work, which might be where the more advanced proof came f you cannot be 100% sure.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.

Could anyone seriously be surprised to find that AI companies utilize this perfect scenario where naive people voluntarily hand over all their "business secrets" to them? Other "cloud"-services at least had to put in the effort to comb through all what is stored on the computers they rent out in order to find something of value to sell... but hosted LLM services pretty much only get the "interesting latest development" stuff handed to by their users, and those users already pay for the service to semantically analyze these inputs. A dream scenario for data brokers.

"Human lawyer using AI tool" clearly is not the way to go these days, instead the lawyer should have been replaced by an AI agent (owned by some big corporation), because we all know when such AI agents do wrong, nobody gets fined, and the event would even be good for some marketing press releases.

It almost appears as if every vaguely related company out there really wants to experience a VR investment flop of their own, like it is a trophy to put up on your wall. I don't see any compelling reason why "this time" specifically their new VR headset should find an audience outside of the relatively small group that already enthusiastically tested the previously existing ones. I for one have had my 15 minutes of "ok, cool effect, but now let's do something else"-experience with a number of those devices, and I really don't see how the next one could lure me into wearing a headset for any extended period of time. (And no, it is not nausea I experience with VR headsets, I just think they are uncomfortable to wear.)

The scores of Chinese models like Kimi K3 are pretty much the same as the scores of the US frontier models - even if you could somehow prevent "distilling from US models", that would mean nothing for the rest of the world. And since several Chinese models are open-weight already, there are no horses left any AI company could keep in their barn. (Even if those horses were not stolen from others, before.)

I knew I couldn't trust the ingredients list of IcyHot!

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.

According to the statistics on AI-slop video-clip uploads and views thereof (on Youtube and others), the "Influencer" sphere is already in the middle of having humans replaced by AI.

I for one think it is believable that a person does not want to remain part of something they think has a 10% chance of killing everyone, while at the same time not thinking it would be worthwhile to dedicate the rest of one's life to a fight against that something. Maybe he rather wants to spend whatever many years remain with activities he enjoys rather than with a futile attempt on convincing the entire world to abandon a technology that may kill everyone, but also may provide "the first to perfect it" untold riches and power.

If the only realistic outcomes one sees are either (A) "Me becoming enslaved by that enemy" or (B) "Everybody dies", a lot of people will favor (B) over (A), and historically already did so with regards to the nuclear "mutually assured destruction" doctrine.