offnominal

> falsifiable claims that are, well, false

Oh, I didn't realize it was 2028 already!

This is analogous to a situation where a passenger in a vehicle, for example, asks the driver to pull over or to drive to a given spot. I believe the passenger does not need to have a driving license to perform this task.

> Wrong, as the questions were poses to commercial AI models and they can solve them.

Why does this matter? As far as I can tell, because the solution is not known this only affects the time constant (i.e. the problems were known for longer than a week). It doesn't seem that I should care about that.

Did they reduce thinking effort on Codex too? It seems to have become significantly worse in the past couple of days. It keeps making dumb mistakes (that it wouldn't earlier), so my chats are much longer to get it to fix them. That might be more expensive for OpenAI (and me!).

The key difference in your example and the comment you are replying to is that the commenter is not "defending the decision" via a logical implication. Obviously the implication can be voided by showing the assumption false.

> Any mathematicians who have actually called it "new interesting mathematics", or just an OpenAI employee?

He is a mathematician. Unless you wanted to say "any other mathematicians..."

Not sure if you're trying to be provocative, but you could just click his name in the link you provided to find a lengthy list of arXiv preprints: https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Bubeck,+...

The OpenAI employee posting this is a well known theoretical computer scientist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Bubeck

I quite enjoyed it. You're in a different part of the world and only have access to lead level data from your local population. You spot an anomaly in a cultural subgroup. Then through extensive guesswork you pinpoint a cause to a specific additive to a spice often consumed by folks in this culture. I would say that qualifies as a detective story.

But anyway, lead chromate is not a pesticide. The level of harm from pesticides containing heavy metals vs lead chromate is different. You're probably much much less likely to see lead poisoning levels in your blood just by consuming food treated only with pesticides.

Are you a company? If not, then you probably don't have revenue -- you have income.

Salaries in general (not just of software developers) are tax deductible in many countries. This is desirable because we do not want companies to be paying taxes on revenue.

The survey was done across California -- not just SF and LA. Either way, wikipedia claims that 37.7% of SF residents were born in California which is slightly closer to 50% than the 25% figure you quoted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#...).

The survey also states that "Most participants (87%) were born in the United States. ... Two-thirds (66%) were born in California."

I still don't understand why the survey is statistically impossible.

It's unclear to me why this is isn't statistically possible. Could you please explain?

But anyways, this article (paywalled) claims that 48% of California adults were born in the state as of 2022: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/california-populat...