ants_everywhere

8 ms·

31.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
Keep in mind that pangram flags many hand-written things as AI. > I just ran excerpts from two unpublished science fiction / speculative fiction short stories through it. Both came back as ai with 99.9% confidence. Both stories were
32.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
To clarify there is no evidence of any lying or fraud. So far all we have evidence of is HN commenters assuming bad faith and engaging in linguistic phrenology.
33.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
It's 2025, people are going to use technology and its use will spread. There are intentional communities devoted to stopping the spread of technology, but HN isn't currently one of them. And I've never seen an HN discussion w
34.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
IMO HN should add a guideline about not insinuating things were written by AI. It degrades the quality of the site similarly to many of the existing rules. Arguably it would be covered by some of the existing rules, but it's become suc
35.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
> Climate change and bad decisions from the last 50 years are starting to bite now. It’ll just get worse. Expect migrations and countries collapsing as millions of people are pushed to migrate for survival. For those unfamiliar, climate
36.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
I wonder what being a worker would be like if every CEO of every company could be personally arrested for a mistake made by any employee. My sense is it would be significantly worse than it is now.
37.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
You'll probably have to think carefully about anti-abuse protection. A great deal of LLM-generated content shows up in comments on social media. That's going to be hard to classify with a system like this and it will get harder as
38.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
> (he wasn’t fond of GitHub's automated scanner Do you mean they thought the scanner was effective and weren't fond of it because it disrupted their business? Or do you mean they had a low opinion of the scanner because it was
39.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
You'd have a hard time justifying the argument that moral frameworks are arbitrary. First, they have complicated internal structures that aren't well understood even today. See, e.g., the various "paradoxes" of modal log
40.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
Would your concerns be lessened or heightened if AI was more accurate? The doomsday scenario was always a highly competent AI like Skynet.
41.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
This is a different claim than what I was responding to, which is that the claim that the letter was based on science and common sense experts. If you grant that it wasn't then we're in agreement, although your stating that people
42.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
The letter is not based on science and common sense of experts. You can read the letter here https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/20251110_Scie... It doesn't make any positive claims other
43.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
It's exactly the same as the literal Luddites, synthesizers, cameras, etc. The actual concern is economic: people don't want to be replaced. But the arguments are couched in moral or quality terms for sympathy. Machine-knitted tex
44.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
The bigger risk to European credibility is surely from people parroting AI-skeptic rhetoric. Imagine if a bunch of vaccine skeptics or evolution skeptics signed a letter saying their leaders were over-hyping science... and if the language f
45.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
Reading books is extremely important However, as a nitpick, I don't think you're going to "beat the experts" as a "contrarian outsider" by reading books like Man's Search For Meaning and Lee Iacocca's
46.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
A realistic child linguistic corpus for a 2 year old starting to form sentences would be about 15 million words over the course of their lifetime. Converted to LM units that's maybe about 20 million tokens. There are small language mod
47.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
There was a large literature on language acquisition prior to the invention of LLMs that showed that Chomsky's argument likely wasn't correct. This is in addition to the fact that he significantly underestimated the amount of ling
48.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
Nope. I would appreciate if you and the GP not personally insult me when you have a question though. You may feel that you know Marcus to be into one particular thing but some of us have been familiar with his work long before he pivoted to
49.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
Nothing in my comment is a misrepresentation. It may help to look up some of the words I mention in the comment if you're unsure what they mean. Also Gary Marcus doesn't make an "argument" in the singular. He's a re
50.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
We weren't talking about AGI. It sounds like that's a topic you are interested in. It's a fine topic just not the one we're discussing. And my phrasing was wonderful and perfect.
51.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
Gary Marcus has a very particular view of human psychology that was popular for a while, especially in the early 2000s. Major proponents include Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, Jerry Fodor. This view was heavily influenced by symbolic computer
52.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
I see. It sounds like you're coming at this from an outsider perspective as someone who hasn't formally studied math and doesn't know what research level mathematicians are taught. There's nothing wrong with taking an in
53.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
> You seem to have a very limited understanding of mathematics. You're welcome to stick to it but I'd recommend learning what mathematics is actually about You'd think I'd know what mathematics is about since I have a
54.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
> it's not true for mathematicians It actually is true for mathematicians. Most of us work in ZFC. Some people choose to work in constructive logic. Some people choose to only use countable choice. But we always know what logic we&#
55.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
> It seems like the person you're responding to has decided a type checker... should be considered a scoring function To clarify, I didn't decide this, this is a valid scoring function in AlphaEvolve. The scoring function is ge
56.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
yes the LLM produced the results themselves
57.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
Yes mathematicians chose problems for the LLM to solve, and then the LLM solved them. That's how we know they were good open problems and that this is research level math.
58.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
The Langlands Program is a research program not a single mathematical problem. It consists of many open conjectures with various levels of progress toward them. However, I think it's quite a victory that the goal posts have moved from
59.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
The objective function is the problem. The objective function is given in all problems. In "find an X such that Y" the objective function is "is this an X? is Y satisfied?". In induction you have P and n to ratchet up
60.
by ants_everywhere 11mo ago
What do you feel is fundamentally different about the feedback loop in AlphaEvolve compared to, say, Einstein and Grossman repeatedly running calculations until they found the right tensor setup for General Relativity? Or Euler filling his

More ›