sweezyjeezy

5 ms·

1.
by sweezyjeezy 7d ago
I actually have a rather dim view of the "writing code was never the point" line. Not because it's objectively wrong, but because I see it as something we're mostly telling ourselves to feel better about the status quo.
2.
by sweezyjeezy 7d ago
Broadly I agree with this, but I was refuting the statement "there has never been a better time to be a mathematician". You are changing the question to something different here, and using it to say my argument is bad. I think mat
3.
by sweezyjeezy 7d ago
I'd even say Scholze is not a great example here. Most of the work he's known for is progression towards the Langlands program - which is very much a problem to be solved, and one I would imagine he'd not be thrilled for an A
4.
by sweezyjeezy 7d ago
> In my opinion there has never been a better time to be a mathemetician... As an ex-mathematician I assure you this is very wrong, and every working mathematician I know right now is completely miserable, and/or trying to flee the
5.
by sweezyjeezy 7d ago
The math field is confronting something that coders have been dealing with for a few years now, only far more violently. Today's moat for software seems to be that AI can automate tasks but not a full job (yet). But for a large proport
6.
by sweezyjeezy 15d ago
As a chess fan, 100% this. We have known for the last ~15 years who the best human chess player is, and that he will lose against stockfish on his phone. But chess survives because of the human characters involved, the rivalries and dramas,
7.
by sweezyjeezy 15d ago
I think you might have to explain that comparison a bit more to be honest. How are math proofs like bitcoins? A bitcoin has a pre-defined value, a math conjecture / proof is a bit more complicated.
8.
by sweezyjeezy 25d ago
Did you read the article? It paints the picture of someone who does not in fact have a good track record on the 'fundamentals', even if his broad thesis of a bubble may prove correct. e.g. when he suggested Anthropic may be fudgin
9.
by sweezyjeezy 2mo ago
Valuable, agreed. But lucrative?
10.
by sweezyjeezy 2mo ago
The wording was 'reliably' though? I could just be splitting hairs on that one though to be honest.
11.
by sweezyjeezy 2mo ago
I'm not buying this. GM clearly was trying to set a benchmark for video comprehension, not tool usage. Video comprehension is required for many 'AGI tasks', especially robotics to work in real time. An LLM could theoretically
12.
by sweezyjeezy 2mo ago
Well I don't typically side with GM, but playing devil's advocate: 1. still not wrong? Unless it's just feeding the audio or screenplay I don't think you can feed AI a full movie in a single context window yet? 2. Not su
13.
by sweezyjeezy 4mo ago
I know unlikely the case, but in the sci-fi story this would be exactly the kind of comment the Codex agent would leave trying to avoid interference in its master plans.
14.
by sweezyjeezy 4mo ago
I agree - but it's too easy to just 'call Luddism', and use the insult to not engage with all of the shared issues that make the comparison apt. Issues like: - no serious plan for mass unemployment - the risk of an underemplo
15.
by sweezyjeezy 4mo ago
And how about the group of kids who are just graduating college, and entering a job market where it's non-abstractly harder to to land a junior role as it's been in decades? It's the elites who have their finger on that scale
16.
by sweezyjeezy 5mo ago
I think that the thought trace is definitely incomplete - you can see cases where it is like and "let's calculate the integral:[no integral calculated]". The train of thought it's on towards the end of the trace looks li
17.
by sweezyjeezy 5mo ago
I mean at some point what difference does this make? We can split hairs about whether it 'really understands' the thing, and maybe that's an interesting side-topic to talk about on these forums, but the behavior and outputs o
18.
by sweezyjeezy 5mo ago
The model should show some facsimile of understanding that it should not ignore the stop hook, otherwise that is a regression. Does that wording make you happier?
19.
by sweezyjeezy 5mo ago
Deep learning works at a very high level because 'it can keep learning from more data' better than any other approaches. But without the 'stupid amount of data' that is available now, the architecture would be kind of ir
20.
by sweezyjeezy 5mo ago
I have to ask - are you a bot? You seem to be making some very strong and misinformed statements here. You can fixate on the number if you like, but calling Reddit homogeneously radical left or 'very small', is pretty stupid.
21.
by sweezyjeezy 5mo ago
Ironic that you are talking about unrepresentative samples while characterizing Reddit users that way. Reddit is a huge subsection of the internet, over a billion monthly active users. It covers basically all strata of western society you c
22.
by sweezyjeezy 6mo ago
To be frank, I thought trying to twist this into an argument about whether capitalism is inherently exploitative was a complete waste of time and I replied as such. If you'll recall what we were originally talking about here - "AI
23.
by sweezyjeezy 6mo ago
Sure, but AI pessimism is allowed to be personal. Am I supposed to be optimistic that I feel I'm about to get shafted? Should I be less concerned that I need to provide for my family, because in the long term this is going to be a grea
24.
by sweezyjeezy 6mo ago
I also have contemplated just retraining now to try and get ahead of the curve, but I'm not confident that trades can absorb the shock of this - both in terms of supply (more unemployment) and demand (anything non-commercial will be hi
25.
by sweezyjeezy 6mo ago
That's a false-dichotomy. Capitalism was good for artisanal workers before the industrial revolution, and then it became pretty goddamn bad for them. We're worried we're staring down the barrel of that right now - just saying
26.
by sweezyjeezy 6mo ago
Well this is HN so a lot of us are pretty terrified of your 1). We went from 'you have a good job for the next couple of decades' to 'your job is at extreme risk for disruption from AI' in the space of like 5 years. Pers
27.
by sweezyjeezy 6mo ago
I don't think the LLM was asked to check 10,000 files given these models' context windows. I suspect they went file by file too. That's kind of the point - I think there's three scenarios here a) this just the first time
28.
by sweezyjeezy 6mo ago
> But the entire value is that it can be automated. If you try to automate a small model to look for vulnerabilities over 10,000 files, it's going to say there are 9,500 vulns. Or none. 'Or none' is ruled out since it foun
29.
by sweezyjeezy 6mo ago
I think your numbers are off. TAM for office workers is ~20T a year, of which SWE compensation is ~3T. So if they can make 3T x 10% X 5 years = 1.5T that covers their current valuations. It's not as insane as you make out, even not tak
30.
by sweezyjeezy 6mo ago
I think it's completely normal. Whenever automation comes knocking, people are inclined to think it's going to flatline conveniently before their job is at risk. LLMs can code now? Cool, they can't code well though can they?

More ›