cman1444

4 ms·

1.
by cman1444 5d ago
I think you're misunderstanding my point. The headline's usage of the term "forecasting" is not referring to weather forecasting, or climate forecasting. It's referring to forecasting a wide range of possible future
2.
by cman1444 9d ago
I don't understand your analogy. Are you just suggesting that luck plays too large a role in this contest? Clearly there is some "skill" or ability factor because AI's have been scoring higher and higher each year. Also,
3.
by cman1444 9d ago
Are you referring specifically to climate as in weather? The article is about forecasting a range of future events, not specifically weather.
4.
by cman1444 12d ago
I keep seeing people repeat that the goal of math is "understanding". I do think that is one goal of math but I don't think it's the only one. I think an additional goal is simply "truth", which can be found
5.
by cman1444 15d ago
Is it really such an extraordinary claim to say that they could have solved the problem without copying Buckmaster and Alpoge? It seems very much in the realm of possibilities. To me, it seems just as extraordinary to claim that they did
6.
by cman1444 15d ago
It seems a perfectly reasonable possibility that Navier-Stokes is just the most easily solvable of the remaining problems, and that their new model is capable of solving it while not being capable of solving the others. There's many ca
7.
by cman1444 16d ago
You forgot possibility 3: OpenAI solved the problem without using any private training data from the two researchers. Everyone in this thread seems to have made up their mind about OpenAI's guilt though.
8.
by cman1444 17d ago
>For other workers: wages may increase on paper, but not really for actual purchasing power. This is not necessarily a conclusion you can draw from that statement. It's possible that as the economic pie grows, workers' purchasi
9.
by cman1444 17d ago
No. As I said, the long-term gains are mixed-to-positive. And, all else being equal, you would rather have more short term job gains than none at all.
10.
by cman1444 17d ago
Except, so far, this isn't actually what happens. I listened to Moody's "Inside Economics" podcast with Ramp's Chief Economist, and they observe that companies who adopt AI intensively actually hire 10% more people.
11.
by cman1444 17d ago
Because he works for Anthropic. Supposedly this project was not part of his official capacity as an employee of theirs. However, if they had published first, it's hard to imagine Anthropic not taking the opportunity to claim "our
12.
by cman1444 17d ago
Where did the veil lift? This feels like a witch-hunt to me.
13.
by cman1444 17d ago
Even if true, I don't see why this is an issue. Are they not allowed to work on problems others are working on? Did Anthropic get first dibs on this problem? Competition is good. And I don't exactly have tons of sympathy when the
14.
by cman1444 22d ago
If we accept that it is a proof then it does improve human knowledge, even if no one can understand how to get there. If you were navigating a pitch dark cave, wouldn't you find it useful to be able to see the light of the cave opening
15.
by cman1444 24d ago
Would it be more reasonable to take images from movies and create worlds of various IPs? My first thought is a detailed Hogwarts that is fully explorable using scenes from the movies (or even descriptions from the books?)
16.
by cman1444 1mo ago
How do you know they didn't go over it?
17.
by cman1444 1mo ago
The big question is if there are larger economic gains to be made from ever greater intelligence. It seems to me like that may be the case for only a select few hard problems, while the vast majority of tasks approach their economic ceiling
18.
by cman1444 1mo ago
This is a needless qualifier for the argument at hand. A proof can just be "assuming these axioms.....the area of a triangle is X"
19.
by cman1444 1mo ago
So then it sounds like you agree that math has additional utility beyond just human comprehension. If I understand you correctly, you're just qualifying that that will only be the case when AGI exists. To be clear, I actually disagree
20.
by cman1444 1mo ago
Surely there are cases where a user could request child sexual content without it being technically criminal. For example, sexually suggestive clothing/content that is not complete nudity.
21.
by cman1444 2mo ago
Isn't that what the antagonists mentioned in the article are for?
22.
by cman1444 2mo ago
>Orexin receptor agonism was thought to be a mechanism of modafinil/armodafinil. The article seems to imply this is not the case. Do you have a source that says that Orexin agonism is the mechanism of action for modafinil?
23.
by cman1444 2mo ago
Could you please share this spreadsheet? I would really love to have my own version of this.
24.
by cman1444 3mo ago
Very case dependent of course. There are loads of small towns that have stagnant or shrinking populations all across the US.
25.
by cman1444 3mo ago
Shhhhh, it's way more fun to spout cynical and clever quips about a publication without backing it up with any reasoning.
26.
by cman1444 3mo ago
Why?
27.
by cman1444 3mo ago
Wow, I find economist to be one of the best publications to read about global events. Can you say more about what you think they lie about?
28.
by cman1444 3mo ago
The blog actually spells it "Artic", not "Arctic". I wonder if the blog or the company misspelled it.
29.
by cman1444 4mo ago
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/beauty
30.
by cman1444 4mo ago
What is the difference between "beauty" and "elegance" of a proof?

More ›