In other words: Don't be mean to a Skynet in Training.

I don't know what field you are in, but in my area, math, this is wildly not the case. They are much, much better. And the next line of the public frontier models are obviously even better judging from everything that we've seen drop from OpenAI and Anthropic. The large OpenAI release would by itself would have four or five results which would arguably be a Fields Medal if a human had done that, and quasi-RH which would if a human did it be almost definitely a Fields Medal result.

I read the reasoning (below) for the name on the Wikipedia page, but it still seems unfortunate for something that's suppose to be smaller than regular JPEG. :-)

It's like trying to figure out if the LHC is simply very big (Large Hadron-Collider) or just for smashing big particles (Large-Hadron Collider) - or both. :-)

Even more stupid, what do these hackers have against food? If the point was just to be dicks, or for fun, mission accomplished. If it was to illuminate insecurities, they missed the mark. If it was for ransom, they picked the wrong targets. In any case, while these systems were/are apparently insecure, there are valid arguments for internet access on them. There aren't any good arguments for spoiling/wasting food.

So a country attacked another country w/o preparing for possible consequences? Where have I seen this before? /s

Also interesting when the story includes comments about being way overvalued and "investor gullibility" and the company doesn't respond when asked to comment. Kinda seems like an agreement, but maybe they're respond later and/or elsewhere.

On the contrary. The people trying to make this sort of claim at this point are overwhelmingly the non-mathematicians. To the mathematicians the number of new proofs of genuinely difficult problems and the use of novel techniques like those in the Unique Games Conjecture proof and Hadwiger-Nelson make us generally have the exact position you are claiming is something that is believed by the non-mathematicians. Even the most anti-AI mathematicians like Tasmin Chu agree that the AIs are producing novel, major work at this point.

Seriously? They proved the quasi-Riemann Hypothesis. Are you seriously going to argue that that was stolen somehow and not a useful contribution?

You seem to be conflating two very different things. There's a massive difference between an LLM connecting ideas that hasn't previously been connected, while using ideas from humans, and claiming that all they are doing is rearranging data.

Since the Republican majority in the House and Senate allowed it to, acquiescing to Trump's every whim out of fear from him and his dwindling base of Red Hats, who he's now also screwing over by breaking every campaign promise he made - except for the racists ones being driven by Stephen Miller and other like-minded people in his Administration. Hopefully things will change - for the betterment of us all - after the mid-term elections.

Will be the next animated film by Trey Parker and Matt Stone - or episode on South Park, I mean, America. :-)

[This renaming AI to SI thing is so stupid.]

In addition, it fosters sloppy police work. Even *if* Flock surveillance was infallible, proper analysis would still be required. In this case, the "evidence" (below) seems wildly inadequate and requires the accused to prove her innocence. Using the below as a the basis for a prosecution seems criminally negligent.

The 2026 mid-term elections are on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

This gets to some extent into the issue of what we mean by "novel" and admittedly that has some subjectivity to it. One take on what is going on here is that this should be showing us how much that we thought of as creative was just rearranging things. There's a legitimate argument that the AI isn't doing anything creative or clever here, and that if someone says, "Well, by that metric the vast majority of human mathematicians aren't doing anything creative or clever," and while I see that as a pretty hard response, one response is to just say "Yeah, go bite that bullet."

Here? None.

I'm not sure where the line is there. For at least some of these, part of it seems to be the AI importing pieces of techniques used in other areas of math. In general, no human discovery is completely novel. Newton's work relied on prior work of Galileo, Oresme and many others. Einstein's work relied on ideas of hundreds before-hand. At the same time, there's people whose work really does look like it is fundamentally different in many ways than what went before, and both of those are examples. In math, Peter Scholze's perfectoids for example clearly build on existing ideas, but there's a lot of stuff that looks deeply new. How to draw the line here isn't always clear. For what it is worth, Harald Helfgott, who is a much smarter and more knowledgeable mathematician than I am thinks that of what he's looked at it seems like the AI is still producing things in what amounts to almost the "convex hull" of known math or close to it. But his idea of what that looks like may be much bigger than my idea.