My reaction is almost the exact opposite. I don't particularly care for Sam Altman or a bunch of the people around them, but everything OpenAI has said about any of these matters has looked completely genuine. In the original Hugging Face breach, Hugging Face announced they had been hacked days before OpenAI even figured out what had happened. And after that, Hugging Face worked with OpenAI to make a highly detailed timeline of what happened https://huggingface.co/blog/ag... . We don't have that sort of timeline yet but that already is strong evidence that the first set of incidences were real. And as with those situations, in order for OpenAI to be engaging in a "stunt" that means they needed to tell an AI to go and hack things outside, which would violate multiple federal laws. The simplest explanation that fits the evidence is that this was not a stunt. Their own level of safeguards look incompetent, but incompetence is not maliciousness.

Surveys, and also people meters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_meter.

Yes, sadly, they do not cure mental illness.

This is about electing the governor.

It is a statewide election, so gerrymandering is irrelevant.

Same with my Toyota Innova.

I have to tap "Agree" before I can use the car.

After tapping "Agree", it turns on the radio, so I also have to turn that off again. Every time.

I'm not sure what I'm agreeing to, since the terms and conditions aren't listed on the screen.

Texas has plenty of wind and sunshine.

They should be installing wind turbines in the Panhandle and solar panels in the Trans-Pecos region.

Someone should explain supply and demand to Governor Abbott.

I think there's some nuance needed there.

Pelosi's trading is legal, it's highly problematic from an ethics perspective, but it's completely legal and somewhat common for legislators to do. So she can be criticized for using an unfair advantage, but it's not unprecedented nor a major sin.

Trump's grifts on the other hand do violate laws and precedent, those laws just aren't enforced.

For an extra $100k you get a pardon!

The distinction here is that they are in that situation getting information about what the market is doing slightly faster, or sending an order slightly faster. But here the information is information that is not publicly available. So yes, the distinction here is clear. This is insider trading. (That the other stuff should also be illegal but isn't is a secondary issue here.)

Yes, you and I have disagreed on these matters before here. That you might want to listen even a little bit to subject matter experts should maybe occur to you. But if you don't want to listen to me, then there are other options. Alvaro Lozano-Robledo did a great interview with Francesco Fournier-Facio about it the sofic group problem and why we care https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . Fournier-Facio has done a lot of recent good work in infinite group theory. If you want to learn more about the sphere packing problem and why we care, you can look at Conway and Sloane's book "Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups." For the Ramsey problem, you can check out Ron Graham's book on Ramsey theory, although it is a bit old at this point. A more up to date book is Soifer's "Ramsey Theory: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow" but I haven't personally read it. But the upshot is that other than which of these problems I've personally worked unsuccessfully on, there's nothing here that you cannot verify yourself, so you don't really need to rely on me and your own opinion that I have no clue is only a little relevant.

Mathematician here. None of the ten problems under discussion here are remotely problems that "nobody really looked for a long time because the problem was not interesting enough." All ten of these were major problems in their subfields; I was familiar with 8/10 before this, and I've talked with people in the other subfields who have confirmed that the other 2 were also major enough. The sphere packing problem has been a problem which people have been thinking about variants of for literally over a hundred years, and is one that I thought about (and made no progress on) when I was doing my PhD. The Ramsey problem is one of the most famous open problems in Ramsey theory, and one I've also thought about, as my own research areas have moved somewhat into graph theory the last few years. Of the remaining other 6, I've never seriously thought about, but are still well known problems.

Your point about there being many open problems, and they've only solved a small fraction has more validity. But that's also just as true for how human mathematicians function. I've probably thought about hundreds of problems, and solved only maybe 5% of those, and nothing I've solved has been remotely of the level of any of these ten problems in fame or amount of prior attention. That these systems are only solving a fraction of the problems is true but is only the smallest hit on how impressive these results are. And these systems continue to improve. We'll likely see even more impressive results in a month or two.

The person you are referring to is not an AI hater, they are as they say astonished. I'm not sure which example they are referring to, but there have been multiple examples at this point with GPT 5.4 or higher or Fable where the primary thing the human has done is just told it to keep trying and continue every so often.

While we do not know precisely what system OpenAI was using, the proofs they generated in this case did not come with automatic Lean or other verification. And many of the successful uses of AI in math now, such as Erdos 1196, the Unit Distance Conjecture have been done using just the regular LLM without Lean, or any other system.

Well, that's true also for human mathematicians. I'm a mathematician, and I'd guess I end up solving about 5% or fewer of the problems I end up trying to work on.

Anthropic made a profit second quarter this year https://aitoolsrecap.com/Blog/anthropic-first-profit-2026-revenue-breakdown. We'll see if they make a profit in Q3, but at least right now, that statement doesn't look accurate. Now, there's reasonable concern about how real this profit is, given the weird amount of self-dealing and entanglement between the different companies. I also wouldn't be surprised if none of the major data center companies are taking chip depreciation into account to the extent they should. But at least on paper, right now, the statement isn't true.