CJefferson

So, the specification of the theorem we are fairly solid on, formalising what a group is, and a simple group, have been done a long time and we are confident in the correctness of.

Assuming you do trust those, then assuming the formalisation passes lean (and lean has no bugs!), then the whole idea is you've got a proof of the theorem.

I can almost certainly make my browser submit its file upload POST with the compression of my choice and your server will accept it.

This test seems to have one major hole. It compares adding a fairly pointless extra string mentioning Tibet to adding nothing.

Maybe the model is getting confused. Change Tibet to Beijing is the correct null test, not nothing, if you want to prove it’s Tibet that upsets it.

Not if they get told they are clear. Then their cancer gets worse and before anyone realises it’s untreatable. Downplaying faked test results is disturbing.

There are two important differences:

1) We have a legal system which (not perfectly) can reverse or fix issues which arise, with crypto money, it's just gone.

2) Someone who can produce fake colourful paper will typically only be able to produce a fairly small amount and not destabilize the whole currency. In the rare occurrences where someone found a significant hack in a crypto-currency, it's just done.

It's been 14 years since I reported you can't search for "wedding" in Bugzilla, have they ever fixed it, they hadn't last time I checked:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=752844

(The bug is they do 'clever matching', so wedding matches weds, and too many emails you weds for wednesday, you can't say 'just show the word I ask you for')

Irritatingly, even if you upgrade to the very latest Mac OS X and Xcode, you still get Python 3.9.6.

While you can give people guidance to install a more up-to-date python, everything is much, much harder than the default experience that gives them 3.9.6 (and also once you have them running a custom version with uv or something, may as well just get them to install 3.15!)

I'm 45, I hated DVD menus. I mean, maybe 5% were cool but 95% were awful.

Of course, even worse than the menus was when companies realised they could give you unskippable adverts and trailers on your DVDs.

I'd prefer a mid open model as an option, Anthropic + OpenAI are already hiking prices, what when they decide to collude and hike them 100x at some point in the future? I'll be happy with a mid open alternative then.

Why would the Europeans want a high-quality open source model that isn't either owned by American Trillion-dollar companies or created by the Chinese? You really can't think of any reasons?

I mean I could but I find a full drive backup isn’t that much bigger than a more selective backup and whenever I try to back up part of a drive I never grab the right bits.

The reason I dislike this is data centers aren’t houses, they are industry. Industry and farms takes up more power and water than some peoples houses, because your house doesn’t need to create the power and food and stuff you need to survive.

In my experience that works in box like 80% of the time. Which is great! But a backup is great in case it doesn’t.

If you are wondering ‘How are you getting that much failure’, it’s because I like to freeze older versions and they often decay for one reason or another (can’t get files for example)

You could set the hard cap to a billion dollars. Everyone has a different hard cap — every company and person has an amount they simply couldn’t pay. This is just asking you to decide what that is and write it down.

Independent people don’t know what is happening inside OpenAI, they certainly aren’t going to share.

This isn’t a zero sum game, I’m happy to hear from people both previously inside OpenAI and completely independent of them.

You are clearly accusing these people of something. Be clear.

Yes, it is easier to have a moral compass when you don’t have to worry about you and your children starving. But that doesn’t imply that moral compass is wrong or broken.

Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, it isn’t automatically first amendment protected to tell people how to effectively commit crimes. It isnt open and shut, but the first amendment isn’t a get out of jail free card.

I would be shocked if a good recursive backtracker could beat a good SAT solver for large problems. I mean, if you could solve SAT with recursive backtracking people would. That is the core of a SAT or CP solver, with the all the extra clever stuff.

I've spent significant chunks of my career help people throw away backtracking searchers people polished over years with a CP-SAT model I threw together in 30 minutes, often much to their upset.

You can for Sudoku often beat a CP-SAT solver, but that's because the problems are trivial and take milliseconds. If you look at more difficult Sudoku variants, or 16x16 grids, backtracking solvers start to fall behind.

In the future I feel one parallel to this is my research area, SAT solving.

People used to solve logic problems by hand, verify logic. Now you pile it into a computer. The problem has been around for a while, no-one fully ‘understands’ the proof of the four colour theorem as a big chunk is computer proved.

We are now just changing (admittedly greatly) what we can put in a box marked ‘checked by computer.

Nope, I’ve tried this, it’s awful.

For a start LLMs love LLM generated text, so you are boosting papers people never had any input in.

Secondly, LLMs in my experience are good at small issues, but fail totally at the whole paper being obviously poorly constructed, or clearly fake.

Something is going horribly wrong. I don't know what it is (without your code I don't know), have you profiled where it's going wrong? There's no way a game for 2004 would be that slow.

If you want help, I've done some similar work, you could pop it up on a github repo or something. What is the game?

Anthropic getting angry other AIs are trained on their AIs output is, to me, one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a while.

I mean, I don't seem to get to say, "Oh I want this but I can't buy it so I'll just steal it LOL", so why should AI companies?

I'm 100% happy with either viewpoint.

1) AI companies all get sued out of existence.

2) AI companies can train networks with piracy, those networks don't fall under copyright, so give me a copy to do what I want with.

No, but why should we accept they get away with it? Also Microsoft has definitely sued people for pirating windows and now collaborates with OpenAI and uses their ai trained on stolen materials.

We don’t have to treat people reading books and companies stealing all human knowledge the same.

Also, companies spent a long time telling us downloading single songs via Napster was the worst thing ever, before torrenting every book in existence themselves. I don’t believe any of these companies have paid for all the books they have trained on.

Well seeing as both Russia and the US want to mess with Canada and Europe, it’s doesn’t make that much difference, bot wise.

I could make a non-deterministic chainsaw fairly easily. I’d also get sued into the ground if I sold it, and I wouldn’t be able to claim ‘Oh, it’s just an unavoidable part of progress’.

I mean, are you saying ‘but more RAM?’ because obviously yes that’s true but not a solution if you already own a laptop, and have you seen ram prices? Also swapping to a fast SSD isn’t like it used to be on spinning discs. I’ve been amazed how responsive Mac neo laptops are and they are swapping all the time.

Wow, that is widely disingenuous, I don't really think there is any excuse for that, I don't believe someone deep in compression algorithms wouldn't know they could adjust the block size, and 512GB is a huge block size for bzip3, as it needs to basically all be in memory so you can't pretend that's just 'the standard value'.