random3

I bet they could have got a good sticker shock headline with just a decent configuration.

+1

the title should be social media. tech is also what you rely on when you travel, climb or after you break your neck.

This comes as straight out of PC vs Mac commercials. You confuse technology with actual products.

While the author and book here seem trustworthy, the issue is real and likely more upon all of us. Nothing that we output will escape the same scrutiny, at least for a while until we will probably have own dedicated AI to scrutinize everything that gets in front of us

+1

makes me want to wait another one I have an M1 Max and just set up playing with an M1 (non-max) and realized it can't drive 3 displays. I recall getting Max just for this, but generally, makes me think of non-Max as a non-pro after all.

And having what's presumably the latest CPU but with potentially worse features than the last generation combined with increased prices from RAM is a deal breaker so I'll guess I'll push my M1 for another year.

Diamonds are crystals, like silicon Nothing wrong with liking shiny rocks, but they aren't that rare and we can generally produce them. Materials have properties. Understanding the properties generally gives us leverage to use them in our own benefit.

Where does it say (or suggest) that they would ban AI? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but I think you missed the point.

By the same definition wars are just procedural ceremony establishing the right solution to a problem. Stalin, Hitler also offered “solutions”.

You also mean ”alternative truth” is the right framing to the otherwise weak framing of “lies”?

Xp84 made a clear description of the real problem— i.e the one everyone talks about and which the OP is about too.

You’re basically saying that if “you have a problem with something, then it’s your problem” - well shit - that’s exactly the meaning of having a problem with sometimes and you’re literally restating it saying it’s in fact not a problem— presumably because you want to be contrarian on the internet, or why is that not a problem?

Those are some really good photos. I always love to look back at photos in workplaces. I took a ton myself and there's something really cool about capturing the workspaces in time.

It was. I think it could still be for some things.

actually, I think you're right

I see it more like a natural phenomenon close to the reality of some conditions than some surprising phenomenon. There are a few reasons and what we're experiencing are related. One of them is automating reasoning which enables at scale work (reasoning) across domains, regardless. The other is that domains are actually much more interconnected than it would seem looking from outside. While this has been the subject of surprising discoveries for decades (at least) I also don't see how it can't be otherwise. Nature doesn't have different laws based on how we chose to artificially split it in "domains".

> There's no particular reason to believe that solving math theorems generalizes to engineering or robotics without a whole lot of additional work

that "whole lot" is only a lot in human time (the typical "man-month") which is what is being sped up here.

then, I think we can get used to math in general

Care to explain which is not?

all the enterprise was missing, all along, was taste

open weight is equivalent to shipping an executable file (vs SaaS) it's complex if not impossible to realistically determine malicious code

it's in the article's subtitle

> “Due to intense enemy drone activity and the presence of landmines, evacuation using conventional unmanned ground vehicles was impossible,”

The yet compressing into now is the definition of singularity. I'd argue that it's "only of limited use" if you don't understand the problem well enough - so yes, it's limited for predicting anything for most people but that doesn't make it an irrelevant aspect at predicting in general.

I think you can understand* math in general. I think not understanding something it's a matter of presentation. Also I think the presentation can be improved. A good-quality AI can do both, hence it can get a presentation that you can understand.

Yet this has zero utility (other than your own satisfaction). Once you understand something, you will likely not even do a better job at explaining it to someone else, so the utility is strictly limited to yourself.

So even ignoring ability to understand the problem is the cost/efficiency of understanding (and applying it).

I agree with your other statements, but I feel you're suggesting the non-sense is scoped to just math. It's not it's almost everything that we do (exceptions are social interactions including care taking, etc.)

So in this frame your "nonsense" is (almost) everything that we do. Personally I'd like to keep doing things.

That's such a nice way to put it! I recently stumbled into "The Last First- Winter K2"[1] and saw the same spirit along with a similar misguided effort to win without the will, nor capacity to do it — e.g. influencers taking a stab at K2 is like prompting your way to results.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_First:_Winter_K2

As much as this looks like a math problem, it's actually an everyone problem. Some hands-on (literally) have more way to go, but otherwise this is a "hop" that the entire society needs to cross. Honestly, I don't think there's going to be be any Math 2.0 as there won't be any other 2.0, at least not in any utilitarian way and the effort to find utility where there's none is misguided at best. The analogy I like to make is that with horses trying to find utility y in the Ford era.

It's also not an OpenAI, Anthropic or any specific name caused problem. This type of progress has always been happening, it's more or less coincidental (like Stigler's law). The problem though is we need to rethink how we operate as a society and too few (IMO) are trying to make this conversation happen.

> Have you proof read what you wrote?

yes, but not in a meaningful way

> With your lack of specificity for the word "thinking", you're casting a rather broad argument;

that's intentional— specific = snowflake → broad = cattle. Same goes for craft vs at-scale manufacturing.

Also Ford was right about horses. Who's the horse now? I've been saying it from the horse perspective too for a while https://x.com/clehene/status/1768411925057347822

At the end of the day, your thoughts are important to everyone else but the "market"— you, your mom, etc. But the market doesn't care about your reasoning and hence can be "irrational" longer than you can be "right".

Also note that rational/irrational is a reasoning aspect. Automating it was on Aristotle's mind too.

Your argument is like Terrence Tao’s yesterday for Math 2.0 - “don’t you want to understand your cancer treatment?” Simple answer “I couldn’t give a flying f**” you give a series of examples that span over 100 years, and imply that the progress over the last 6-12 months is just another instance. It’s a contrarian ignorance, but in reality nobody cares about snowflake thinking except your family, friends and art lovers. That’s why Etsy crafts are irrelevant compared to steadily improving cheap quality you get for the most products they you rely on every day - none of them depend for production on someone’s “craft” it’s simple economics driving them instead. Realize that the process happens now for thinking - and useful to distinguish hubris from reality.

you took a quote of a snarky comment, assumed it a correct reproduction, and then suggested it's the result of imitating adults along with a (sad) state of affairs caused by adults (parents in this context), further implying that snarky comments are the general rule in the house.

now concretely: Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence (non sequitur).

You made a generalization (inductive inference) based on a single datapoint (here's where my pointed faulty generalization or inductive fallacy are the come in) for the general problem. I suggest Popper if you want a deeper treatment of the problem of induction (The logic of scientific discovery is a good start).

Besides generalizing for free, you cooked up evidence that didn't exist - mainly that the child was imitating adults (again, non sequitur).

As a side note, I think it's in poor taste to make remarks about someone's children in what's a technical and informal context. That may have not been the intention but, it's what it looked like.

non sequitur, faulty generalization, inductive fallacy come to mind, but I think it's useful studying how to not be an walking fallacy, in general

If it took 3h for one of them, perhaps there was a time/compute budget cutoff along with a sorting based on some relevance.

Who's "we"?

Also clearly, what's the expectation that we hear that Kiva or Room to Read is baked by DRK? Have you heard of these? Which non profits have you heard of?

Consider this: "19% of all global Audacious Project awardees started out as DRK-funded entities and 10% of all Skoll Award for Social Innovation winners come from the DRK portfolio"

Does this help? Do you know who's Audacious or Skoll? And if, not perhaps can we reason when it's appropriate to challenge anything based on close to zero information about the subject?

fair enough