on iOS I still get badge notifications from unknown senders. I don't think there's a way to turn this off for some reason?
6,065 karma · joined August 13, 2020
Maybe because the current administration has no interest in doing this and Anthropic doesn't want to wait for this cluster-f of a situation to sort itself out. Even if the current admin was for progressive taxation it might take them years to sort through all the bureaucracy to use this money effectively which might be much too late.
But in theory I think you're right.
Today, to explain and communicate these math proofs, it makes sense that a human working with an LLM would be the most effective at human explanation. However, given LLMs current abilities with explanation, it seems reasonable that LLMs will become equal to human experts in explanation. Again part of their power is that they can scale to 1-on-1 explanations for the particular audience which humans cannot do.
> "it's not X it's Y" construct.
I agree this is annoying, but this is not a fundamental feature of LLMs, this is "tick" of current models, like the em-dash. There have been countless of these "ticks" that have been refined and this process will continue.
> Looking up at the stars in wonderment, or enjoying a complex puzzle game, or being inspired by an encouraging teacher, and dreaming that one day an unfeeling corporate robot[1] will burn a rainforest to compile a list of 700 highly obscure barely-readable facts that might be true that nobody can understand as part of a marketing gimmick to raise hype for an IPO[2].
But if I am going to critique it's main point it would be this part:
> in the pursuit of advancing humanity’s knowledge as quickly as possible, many academics will recoil in anger at the suggestion that it is worth spending any time making results understandable to humans. It is inefficient to explain or check a result when those resources can be spent generating another.
While obviously ridiculous, I think this does not go far enough. The problem isn't that people don't care and resources should not be spent to explain AI results to human minds, the problem is that AI will soon be better at explaining itself than humans. The puzzle then changes from can AI formally verify and explain a proof to: do human minds trust the proof. Do we believe that the proof is correct and not an elaborate AI hallucination using tricks that are beyond our understanding. In order to trust it a formal verification is not enough unless it is human understandable. In fact human understandability is the only thing that matters. That is something that AI can never do on its own.
I've been a software developer for 25 years, and coding software by hand is not a wise career choice right now.
[0] New Privacy Menace: Cell Phones? (2003): https://www.wired.com/2003/02/new-privacy-menace-cell-phones...
[1] More trouble for camera-phones (2003): https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2003/06/195-2/
[2] Camera Phones Raise Whole New Set of Privacy Issues (2004): https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/camera-phones-raise-w...
[3] Cam Phones, Go Home (2005): https://time.com/archive/6671091/cam-phones-go-home/
> In September of 2016, arXiv received 9,869 submissions. In September of 2024, arXiv received 20,569 submissions. This September, arXiv received 40,363 submissions, which in turn generated almost 9,000 support tickets for arXiv staff and moderators.
> arXiv now limits submitters to up to two submissions per calendar month, with a limit of three total active submissions at any given time.
> getClientRects() returns the flat array of DOMRect objects for the Fragment’s first-level DOM children. source: https://react.dev/reference/react/Fragment
2nd question it replied:
> They examined 1960–1986 for the 15 OECD countries. Source: https://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director...
Are these hallucinations?
Agents will eventually cause serious harm to online infra whether it’s intentionally human-directed or accidental.
> The companies directing things in dangerous directions need to own that they're consciously pushing in those directions.
Completely agree. That’s why we need regulation. Currently there is minimal oversight and consequences for this type of behavior.
Serious question though because I’ve seen this brought up several times and I don’t understand why: what does EA have to do with any of this? It just seems like this is brought up to evoke some type of “illuminati” conspiracy. Is there a legitimate reason?
I don’t think downplaying what occurred is really beneficial to anyone.
I don’t think that’s an accurate way to think about what’s going on. These agents are not acting independently where one might get lucky. They coordinate how they work by dividing up work into teams.
> Even if they double in capability each generation as claimed, you're still to wait until GPT-16 till you will have a millenium problem capable model in your service; and even if they release twice a year, that's still almost a decade away.
Having a publicly accessible AI able to solve millennium problems within a decade is still pretty shocking. I did a similar calculation looking at how long would today’s $10m in spend cost $100 and came up with a similar answer (8.3 years) using METR’s “Task-Completion Time Horizons of Frontier AI Models”[0]