Eh, they were the only frontier AI company to tell the US government "we won't let you use our models to mass surveil US citizens, or mass murder non-citizens" ... even at the cost of literally millions, if not billions of dollars in sales (they lost access to any US government customer).

I won't claim the're the perfect company, but the other (purely profit-driven) AI companies have demonstrated they will do both of those things. You have to give Anthropic some credit ... although it does raise the possibility that, post-IPO, they might become the same as those other companies.

That might be why a feature exists, or maybe even why a particular paid library was chosen instead of another. That doesn't explain why the code is written the way it was, which is the point of documentation. Why the feature exists is the realm of the PRD, not the design doc.

If you haven't read The CIA's Greatest Hits (https://www.amazon.com/CIAs-Greatest-Hits-Real-Story/dp/1593764391), I can't recommend it enough. It's a very small/short book, written by a political cartoonist (so it's half-illustrations, and a really easy read) ... but it will teach you A TON about the history of what the CIA actually does.

Once you've read it, the fact that the CIA is giving its agents the ability to access millions of dollars in gold bars will not surprise you in the slightest.

You are clearly not very aware of reality.

There are liberal Jews, and there are conservative Jews. In fact, in Judaism there are even (literal) religious branches called "reformed", "conservative", and "orthodox".

As you might expect, the "reformed" Jews tend to be liberal, but many aren't. Meanwhile, the "conservative' ones include some of the most batshit crazy right-wing political operatives you can find!

(The "orthodox" ones, in general, are too busy hanging strings and doing other silly stuff from 2000 years ago to be really active in politics).

Of course if those aren't securities, then the entire site is illegal as it's operating as a securities exchange. That's their legal argument for why they aren't gambling sites, and shouldn't be regulated by state gaming commissions. So expect the full might of all those prediction market sites to be lining up against that argument and for finding him guilty.

I am sick of these socialists and their damn unions, trying to ... um ... make my news more accurate! Those fricking commies!

Someone rapes your mother, and the police know who it was (and thus his license), but they don't know where he is.

Are you seriously going to argue "it doesn't matter if we could catch your mother's rapist using new technology"?

Look, I'm no fan of mass surveillance, but "Were the police unable to do their jobs before the Internet?" seems like a mind-numbingly stupid way to think about it.

Crimes go unsolved every day! Serious crimes, like rape, child abuse, torture, or murder. And with crimes like that, you don't want the perpetrator running around free and able to continue committing crimes!

So yes, people have a very good reason to want to make the police more successful, and no that is not a bad thing! It still doesn't make mass surveillance the right answer ... but please, lets not turn our brains off, and ignore the real and serious issues people are (misguidedly) trying to solve here.

Scalping isn't, and shouldn't be, illegal. You own the ticket, you should be able to do what you want with it, including reselling it.

And no, getting rid of scalpers wouldn't make ticket prices higher. Scalpers exist because the concert ticket prices are lower than what the market will actually bear. If a theater full of people are willing to pay 1K for a concert and they sell the ticket for 500, a scalper can make a profit via arbitrage. The only actual way to get rid of scalpers is to raise the prices to the sky (like 2-5x current prices) and slowly bring down prices over time until they're all sold. But my guess is you probably wouldn't like that any better, as the end price would likely be higher than the current scalpers price.

No, not hinting :)

Literally no one has expressed that, as far as i can see, in this thread. You're fighting a straw man.

What I said, and stand by, is that we should be skeptical because Sam Altman is a sociopathic liar, and there is a long history of examples to support that. It has nothing to do with whether Open AI (or any AI) can create proofs.

Neither the summary nor the article said anything about price. I guess it's not announced, but Gemini thinks:

Less than a Steam Deck!

Right, so you could make a claim like "all mathematicians leveraged (say) 95% prior knowledge". If OpenAI similarly leveraged 95%, and "discovered" the rest, it'd be (at least somewhat) legitimate to say "OpenAI invented a new theorem".

But, if OpenAI actually leveraged 99.9% existing knowledge (remember, my post said ""95+%"), then it's NOT fair to compare it to a human discovery. If a company claims as much, they're dishonestly promoting their product.

Again, I'm not a mathematician, and I did not read the paper. But given Altman's history of deception, I think any disinterested observer should lean towards assuming that he is falsely promoting the competency of his product, before assuming he's invented a machine that can out-invent humans.

I don't think anyone is contesting that. What they are contesting is a sociopath's claim that his tool solved something humans couldn't ... when really 95+% of what it did was just leverage existing human knowledge.

Caveat: I'm not a mathematician and I didn't read the paper ... but Sam Altman is VERY well known for lying (constantly), so everything he says should be taken with multiple bags of salt.

A news aggregator should write blurbs like a news site, and not assume every reader knows what every proper noun is. Plex, an animal husbandry fanservice anime sharing company, ...