aluminum96

People are reading a lot into the FrontierMath articles from a couple months ago, but tbh I don’t really understand what the controversy is supposed to be there. failing to clearly disclose sponsoring Epoch to make the benchmark clearly doesn’t affect performance of a model on it

“they must be lying because I personally dislike them”

This is why HN threads about AI have become exhausting to read

OpenAI explicitly stated that it is natural language only, with no tools such as Lean.

https://x.com/alexwei_/status/1946477745627934979?s=46&t=Hov...

Why do people keep making up controversial claims like this? There is no evidence at all to this effect

Mark Chen posted that the system was locked before the contest. [1] It would obviously be crazy cheating to give verifiers a solution to the problem!

[1] https://x.com/markchen90/status/1946573740986257614?s=46&t=H...

The proofs were published on GitHub for inspection, along with some details (generated within the time limit, by a system locked before the problems were released, with no external tools).

https://github.com/aw31/openai-imo-2025-proofs/tree/main

The solutions were publicly posted to GitHub: https://github.com/aw31/openai-imo-2025-proofs/tree/main

What, you mean your fruit preferences don't form a total order?

Just vaporized a whole team so the roles can be moved overseas :(

SF Voters rejected Proposition A in 2022 [1], which would have included funding to upgrade Muni's control systems (among many other projects). We'll eventually have to find the money somewhere else when the system fails.

[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-voters-narrowly-r...

Google needs much stronger SVP-level product leadership. Directors and VPs should not be fighting for product turf, and major user-facing products, such as an entire default Android app in this case, need to outlast the tenure of any individual VP-level patron.

Brace yourselves. The scale of capital investment coming from Meta, Google, and OpenAI/Microsoft is going to be historically mind-boggling.

Ivy league schools need some high performers, in the sense that they mix admits for intelligence, wealth, diversity, athletic ability, and other factors. Clearly, many smart students attend Harvard. But so do donor kids. When you hire a Harvard grad, you can't tell which graduate you are hiring! That's a huge part of the value proposition for the wealthy. Harvard needs to admit enough truly smart students.

The mean goose avatar for the bot is perfect.

> No one denied any Jewish claims

Yes you did. You said Israel was created by "forcefully stealing land." The vast majority of Jewish migrants in the late 19th century bought the land. If you're talking about the 1949 war... well, it was a war, in which the Israelis agreed to the fair UN partition plan, and the Arab states did not. At the very least, "stealing" is a very reductive way to summarize it.

> by saying it’s complicated, are trying to paint a simple picture

But is is complicated! That is actually true, and that's OK!

> in which Israel apparently didn’t do anything wrong

Of course Israel has done things wrong.

> That’s actually incredibly partisan

I am trying my absolute best to make comments in the spirit of HN. If you think it's too partisan to engage with, then I'm sorry, but you should know that I really did try.

Your scare quotes are super condescending, but yes, it truly is notoriously complicated. Thousands of books have been written on it, and millions of hours have been spent debating it. Denying that Jews have any legitimate claim to land in the Levant is partisan and false, and it pours fuel on the fire. The only possible lasting solution will acknowledge that both Jews and Palestinians have a rightful claim to (and a need for) a state.

> Destroying Israel is different from killing Jews

Israel exists because of the much-repeated global pogroms against Jews. The Mizrahi Jews fled Yemen, Morocco, and other Muslim countries because of antisemitic persecution. Beta Israel fled the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia, which threatened a Jewish genocide. Those Jews had that option because of the existence of Israel, a country located in the ancestral homeland of the Jews.

I sincerely believe that fighting for the destruction of Israel is akin to antisemitism. Because what will happen when the next round of Pogroms and genocides roll around? It's been happening for thousands of years, and as recently as the 70s. Jews need a safe country.

I'm going to nitpick your comment a bit, but this particular nit drives me crazy.

The term "antisemitic" is well-understood in English to refer to hostility towards Jews. I know the root "-semitic" is in there. Yes, Palestinians are also semitic, but that's not what anyone is trying to communicate when they use the word "antisemitic."

Please don't do it, because it's incredibly trivializing.

Israel is emphatically not a colony, and viewing it through the lens of colonialism will lead you astray.

Jews have a legitimate and ancient claim to indigeneity in the Levant. (In fact, Chanukah is about Jews being persecuted and evicted from their homes in the Levant by the Greeks.)

Jews are obviously not the only ethnic group with a legitimate claim to the land. Turks, Ottomans, Arabs, and Palestinians all lived in the area "historically."

In fact, many Israeli Jews are the opposite of colonizers: millions of Mizrahi Jews fled persecution from Arab countries (especially Yemen and Morocco), to return their ancestral homeland in Israel.

You surely know that pasting a dictionary definition is condescending, but I'll take a swing anyway.

Jews have a legitimate and ancient claim to indigeneity in the Levant. (In fact, this week's story of Chanukkah is about Jews being persecuted and evicted from from their homes in the region by a Greek empire.) Of course, Jews eventually left the region due to forcible diaspora.

Jews are obviously not the only ethnic group with a legitimate claim to the land. At least the following groups can all claim to be native to the land, for some definition of native: Turks, Ottomans, Arabs, and yes, Palestinians.

In a very real sense, the millions of Mizrahi Jews are in fact refugees from Arab countries (especially Yemen and Morocco), who fled persecution to their ancestral homeland.

But calling Israeli Jews settlers -- especially within the UN Green Line! -- is terribly inflammatory, and not particularly accurate.

Palestinian citizens are absolutely victims of this conflict. But there are also real Israelis who have real rockets hit their houses and businesses every couple of years. And it's been this way for decades! These people are absolutely victims. Both can be true.

The problem with asking Israel to unilaterally tolerate rocket attacks, invasions, and attempted annihilations, is that that have already been doing that for 70 years. The never-ending attacks are a huge part of the reason Israel's political posture has become so radicalized, and the military response is so intense.

> forcefully stealing land from the Palestinian people

That is incredibly ahistorical, and in my honest opinion, "land theft" allegations are akin to a smear.

The truth about the land's history is, of course, too complicated to fit in a thread.

Users should, of course, post on whatever threads they like. But I am implying that the OP's selection of publication serves one particular perspective, and readers should be aware of Al Jazeera's historical affiliation with that perspective.

Just to be clear -- I'm not alleging that the quotes in the article are falsified or manipulated, as I have no evidence of that either.

I think my most salient argument is that this selection of article is not conducive to a constructive discussion, because some (many?) Jews have a reflexive distrust of Al Jazeera. Don't take that to minimize the substance of the article.

Wow, thanks for responding dang! It's like a fleeting encounter with a celebrity.

I see the HN policy, and understand it generally. But I am vocally lodging my objection in this particular case.

To put a finer point on it: I don't think I'm the only person in my community who has an extremely negative opinion of Al Jazeera, and its historical lack of neutrality on this issue. Having a balanced and nuanced discussion underneath an article from Al Jazeera is, in my sincere opinion, impossible. So why choose this source, when many more reputable sources have covered the suffering in Gaza?

I absolutely said something substantive. But I'll make it even more explicit: Al Jazeera has an untrustworthy track record, and their unverifiable primary-source reporting should not be assumed impartial.

This is only the "genetic fallacy" if you assume that the trustworthiness of Al Jazeera articles is uncorrelated. My entire argument is that this publication is systematically not impartial, and wants to convince you of a particular (Pro-Palestinian) position.

Absolutely agree. Civil online discourse about the I/P conflict is impossible, and at this point we're just beating a dead horse.

Al Jazeera is an exceptionally disreputable source for coverage on this particular issue. It's not just their primary source of funding -- the Qatari state -- but also their abhorrent track record of running stories with no factual basis (such as in the wake of the Al-Ahli incident).

I can't point to anything specifically incorrect about this reporting. But you have to take a lot of primary-source-based reporting on faith, and why would I trust a source that has such a non-neutral track record?

We'd all be better served by sticking to sources that don't have obvious conflicts of interest.

Edit: I want to be clear that I don't have any specific evidence that the article contains falsehoods, and I'm not excusing any of the conduct alleged in the article. I just think Al Jazeera is a terrible way to start a constructive discussion, given its reputation.

> but that doesn't matter to you, does it

With this ad hominem attack, you are contributing toxicity, and it makes having a nuanced online discussion about Israel-Palestine impossible.

The parent comment is lodging a factual, falsifiable complaint.

IMO this topic should be banned on HN, and this is why.