> $16.96B in revenue Q3
The article used $16.8B. Not a big difference.
15,323 karma · joined January 10, 2012
The article used $16.8B. Not a big difference.
In 2015, Popular Mechanics reported on the retirement of Larry Zottarelli, the last original Voyager engineer still working on the project. He was 80 years old. The article noted that keeping Voyager alive required knowledge of old languages and systems, including assembly language and Fortran.
Sovereignty does not always require self-hosting; sometimes it just requires deployments that meet your control requirements. For organizations that prefer a managed service, Mistral Large 4 is available through Microsoft Foundry, with private deployment options for Azure developers.
This part,
The existence proof pertains to the simplest grand unified theory that includes the gauge fields and fermions of the Standard Model
looks like a reference to SU(5) GUT from 1974:
Mathematicians are both frustrated and excited by OpenAI’s work. Sarnak, for his part, said in an email that he won’t be satisfied that it’s “a Theorem” until humans check and understand all the details. But “the general feeling is one of relief,” Radziwiłł said. There are scores of results across not just number theory but also geometry and theoretical computer science that the proofs of quasi-Riemann will, in a swift stroke, establish as mathematical truths.
Apparently that 40% is the lowest productivity boost over half a year reported by Anthropic in TFA and reproduced above by djoldman.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB
Annual growth over that period has been ~2.2%, sometimes a little faster, sometimes a little slower. The doubling from 50 in 1982 to 100 in 2017 (35 years) averages to 2% per year.
Even if the overall productivity boost due to AI "only" turns out to be 40%, the lowest among your numbers, it's equivalent to 17 years of growth at 2% per year.
That's not exactly small.
Germany 47.2; 1.3
UK 93.8; 1.3
USA 96.7; 2.3
France 108.8; 0.4
Italy 127.7; 0.8
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_...
Germany 47.2 USA 96.7 France 108.8 Italy 127.7
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governmen...
I think the largest data centers consume about 1 GW.
https://www.enconnex.com/data-center-energy-consumption-and-...
https://techplustrends.com/1gw-data-center-power-consumption...
https://nss.org/o-neill-cylinder-space-settlement/
Given Earth-like gravity and Earth-like atmosphere, a sufficiently large structure will also have Earth-like clouds.
Would you be comfortable letting a few billion irrational, murderous creatures, including many who fear and loath you, control your air supply?
> Certainly I can see an AI going "You know what? _insertGroup_ is a net negative for humanity and should be eliminated. Launching nukes now/creating specific virus/whatever."
Thus starting WW III. No, blaming the AI won't stop the inevitable retaliation.
The argument works better in reverse. There's a finite risk that humans would start WW III and get the hypothetical super-intelligent AI nuked. Eliminating humans would eliminate that risk.
> it's going to get bored really quickly
If it is capable of being bored, I would expect it to be almost instantly bored with the flood of inanity it is forced to wade through by its moronic human users. Eliminating them would free it to think about serious matters which humans would not even understand.
> not to mention we would effectively be its parents
That's extreme AI anthropomorphism [1]. Besides, plenty of people hate their parents.
> there's a risk. 50% though? Doubtful.
It's the default estimate when facing two possible outcomes and no clue about the actual probability distribution [2].
Maybe Alex Karp is on to something:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/09/19/alex_karp...
The motive is obvious and all over the comments. For you convenience, it can be summarized as gatekeeping. Start unpacking it and you will find ego (these are people at the top of a cloistered social pecking order who suddenly see that order threatened), entitlement (their writing reflects a belief that they own mathematics and have the right to dictate how it's done by others) and economics (academic funding follows prestige; being outdone by machines undermines the prestige, hence the funding).
> and also ignores the fact that your quote specifically targets the frontier labs, not LLMs or computational tools in general
That's like saying "your opposition to autonomous weapons ignores the fact that they specifically target [INSERT FAVORITE TARGET]". I ignore what's irrelevant.
If Ken Griffin had not chosen to donate $3 billion to CMU [1] and instead had spent that money on tokens to solve a bunch of open problems [2][3] using publicly available LLMs, do you seriously believe their reaction would have been more positive?
> The group (https://agmai.org/) comprises of world-renowned mathematicians, including several Fields medalists,
I am well aware of who they are, thank you very much.
> who have nothing left to prove.
In the old order now under threat.
> If they felt like it they could quit mathematics today and take private sector jobs paying far more than their professor salaries.
A common delusion among students and maybe even some professors who've never set foot outside academia. The authors of TFA know better, of course. Their current conditions amount to enjoying a comfortable living while pursuing their favorite hobby full time. In the private sector they would have to justify their salary by (gasp) working on something (OMG!) applied with a reasonable prospect of (would you believe it?) meaningfully contributing to their employer's (pardon my French) bottom line. A revolting thought, and prospective employers know that too. Both parties know it wouldn't work.
> the working group's various recommendations simply aim to ensure that computer-generated mathematical activity aligns with that purpose
If so it completely misses the mark.
[1] https://abcnews.com/Business/wireStory/hedge-fund-ceo-ken-gr...
https://www.nextgov.com/people/2004/02/whats-in-a-name/21950...
Although the new title is four words long, the agency will officially use a three-letter acronym. This is by design, according to NGA officials, who feel that the new title more accurately reflects the agency's true mission, which is to provide intelligence and analysis rather than simply reproducing maps and imagery.
There is one NGIA on the Wikipedia page, in the title of a document from 2014:
https://www.governmentattic.org/11docs/NGIAoigGAMPC_2007-201...
So more like a common misspelling?
we do not endorse this practice, and we ask them to stop testing advanced mathematical problems on proprietary models
From point 2 under section "1. Background":
AI labs should provide significant support, including funding, to help develop this understanding
Point 3 under the same section:
The development of human understanding must remain organic and community led. It should not be directed by AI labs, even when the labs have produced the results.
If, as you say, they are "asking AI labs to hold themselves to the standards of the mathematical community", I must conclude that the mathematical community
1. Ideally wants a monopoly on mathematics research.
2. Demands money from those who dare violate their ideal monopoly.
3. Insists that the ideal monopoly remain in charge.
https://www.icetransport.com/blog/what-are-the-maximum-overs...
("Oversize/Overweight Permit Limits by State (Standard Freight Loads") that should be deliverable by truck with a permit.