Yeah mathematicians tend to do that. Physicists not so much I think. However, none of what he says about AI is such a strong prediction, unlike the 'crackpots' that are probably on your mind.
Might not be solveable. At some point the effort in finding that someone might be larger than the benefit you get from just using the second, third, fourth best. Or using some flawed approximation hiring mechanism. There's just so much noise now. And it hits the good job seekers too.
Dario is no John hammond though. That'd be altman. He actually has the discipline and background as an ai scientist to tell what the potential failure modes are. You're right, he might still be just hyping things up, but generally i'd give more benefit of doubts to anthropic. Precisely because Dario was a scientist and I'd stand by it. People who get their phd in science already self-select, or proven at least to be made of different stuff.
Likewise, people don't as easily blame ilya for 'hyping things up' when he said these things.
Also talk about incentives, there are also incentives to lower their valuation. If you wanna be vigilant against social engineering i'd be wary of that too.
These are moot anyway though cause the article isnt even making any super strong claim. If you read it it's no big deal
you can still grow even with smaller richer more productive population, actually you are encouraged to be more productive with smaller population than vice versa
Gives them the freedom to interpret it 'case by case' which is to mean punishing businesses and states not aligned with Trump with a million inconveniences, while leaving his base unmolested. The most divisive and punitive president ever.
At one point you just have to look at a mirror and ask, what would impress you.
Also why pay anyone, when they can keep up with all the papers that not one man can read them all? That seems to me like wasted money.
Another point is that that's not how AI training works anyway. It's much easier to put it in context rather than re-train them with every bit of random maths you find out. Things at the tail-end of the power law doesn't stick. At least, last I checked...
The opening line of my parent comment is: "This is impressive, no question." I am impressed, and the chain you are replying to is questioning how much that impression should be tempered.
They pay people for expert training data they do not share because it gives them an edge over other AI companies. And, as always, deep learning is enormously data-hungry, and we've gotten to the point where publicly available data has been exhausted.
AI companies absolutely retrain models regularly to keep up with the cutting edge. There is a reason why this announcement references an internal, unreleased model, rather than "we just put a lot of new math papers within the GPT5.5 context window and found this."
You may be right about one observation, but that doesn't mean complimentary observations are genuine and all discoveries are real. In central Australia, and you find some indigenous rock paintings somewhere, and then someone else finds similar ones nearby a year later. Can't question that, right?
The Grand Egyptian Museum (first year in) frequently hits "its maximum planned capacity of around 15,000 to 18,000 visitors per day."
It's not necessarily about Egypt, it's about questioning discoveries in general.
I've even heard theories of the pyramids existing before "Ancient Egypt" even existed. If so, it may never have even been designed to be a tomb. I read in channeled information that it was to anchor the Earth in space and stop it wobbling. Others have said it is/was a jumping point into other dimensions.
"Despite building them as a gift of love and light to humanity, Ra expresses deep regret over how the pyramids were used."
Sure if the goal is entertainment and sports, you're right. However, unlike chess or counter strike it's downstream from a real needed utility. Like, is there a point to do it anymore? (ofc there is, but still, it's been devalued from the perspective of the 'real utility')
It’s literally not. The most interesting and satisfying CTFs have never been grounded in reality, it’s just been an expression of mastery, both from players and authors, with a few notable exceptions. But they’re that, exceptions, not the rule.
reply