simianwords

this is a common fallacy..

Many faults with this argument.

1. You don't need to be an expert in domain A to comment on that domain, this is credentialism that AI itself is dissolving

2. the fact that your non-technical friends can vibe code this much itself is a proof of (1)

3. the proof that Anthropic didn't find important linux bugs is strange when they did find small vulnvs that could be chained to create real exploits - that's how most attacks were made in the past

4. OpenAI recently dropped 400 proofs solving some of the most important problems in mathematics without any expert in those fields which is a great counter example to you

example?

No actually the pause thing is a ruse to cover up the fact that training has hit a wall and to justify the IPO numbers.

her only problem was that someone profits off her contributions. not that other people benefit from it. Why is it that I couldn't care less that OpenAI profits from me but others are so concerned about it? Do others not believe in positive sum trades?

> Put it this way: I've been pretty pissed off at "helping bad people" with my freely given information since roughly the summer of 2022.

I think this is slightly selfish. If you write and your stuff goes into LLM's, that's the best gift you can give to humanity.

patch: AI safety thing is a ruse to do regulatory capture. And there also exist a shit load of people who are ideologically committed to AI safety. But they are useful idiots. Dario Amodei was an AI safety guy since 2015, so according to this patch, he himself was a useful idiot in OpenAI and left it to start a company that beat OpenAI.

lol there’s some schizo who keeps following me around and I think it’s cute. Hi.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49997701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49806528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49801890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49801890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49801909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49791278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49690439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49645016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49615309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49591430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49449427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49435355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49399498

For you it is embarrassing. For Ed Zitronites it is embarrassing for them. Because their premise lied on not AI being powerful but incapable.

A year ago I’d have made the joke that someone would say

“AI companies solve millennium problem to do hype marketing and cash in IPO before the bubble pops”.

But it’s not a joke. This was and is a very common sentiment.

On HN A lot of people think that AI safety is a conspiracy by labs to get regulatory capture.

I wonder what they think of this? Will they patch the conspiracy theory and come up with an even wilder theory?

My point is that

1. the proofs are hard to read

2. but are still sufficiently high enough signal to understand the proof

3. blaming OpenAI for releasing high signal information on important problems is wrong. OpenAI did the right thing here.

4. the mathematicians can take however long they want to digest it and verify it. They have no legal obligation to do it immediately

This is exactly how I'd like society to work. Publish and let information get democratised quickly.

Ok agree to disagree. I think readable proofs are smallest of problems and a distraction to a bigger problem which is loss of meaning.

Fine and we are saying that this is not central to the discussion because even if models wrote it nicely, there'd be even more outrage.

Do you disagree with this? For example, if openai had provided really readable proofs with utmost care but still dropped 400 at once, would there have been less outrage?

> When I task my agent a hard problem and it comes back with a 5000 line PR that I don't follow I reject it and work it into a better shape. I certainly don't slam it into production because it has a 'high signal' of the program I asked for.

??? That's literally what everyone does. You are creating a hypothetical that is nonsensical. Here's your hypothetical:

1. Agent gives you 5000 lines of slop

2. You reject it and just do it yourself

This is reality

1. Agent gives you 5000 lines of slop

2. you realise that it has done a lot of research and is mostly in the correct direction and you ask it nicely to refine it

3. verify that you understood it and push it to prod

Are mathematicians babies that they need a completely different approach?

Whats the nuance here? Your post implied that the problem was unreadable proof and we are saying that this is not central to the discussion. Unreadable proofs are actually very very irrelevant to this whole drama

That’s right and readability argument is a distraction

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50016860

No. But more likely that they, the labs, are acting in good faith.

If OpenAI actually spent time writing good proofs that are readable, mathematicians would show *even more outrage*. So let’s not pretend this has anything to do with readability. It has all to do with people protecting their status in society.

Is it just me or is this line of thinking fundamentally dishonest? It may be true that the papers are hard to read but the papers have extremely high signal towards the proof.

All of these comments seem to suggest that if papers are not 100% abiding by readable books their standards, they are basically the same as literal noise. This is highly dishonest.

I’m just a dude and even I’m able to understand the paper after using ChatGPT to help me through it.

The absolutely funny thing is, he is obligated precisely because the proof is very likely to be correct.

The alternative you are proposing implicitly is even crazier. OpenAI should not release a proof that is most likely correct so that it doesn’t burden others. What? It’s not about that guy dude. It’s about the society TM. One can’t delay progress because a guy may be burdened.

“Guys plz don’t release this thing that is absolutely correct but I’m kinda busy with other things ok?”

there's a popular theory that AI hallucinates 100% of the time and the coping mechanism is to call it a bullshit machine

In this version of conspiracy theory, all the labs secretly understood that training wasn't economically feasible anymore so they all jointly made it look like they were stopping for safety reasons.

Is there no end to this kind of lazy conspiracy theory

Maybe... just maybe companies find an equilibrium? Maybe companies reinvest in training because there's performance increase?

in this world view, OpenAI held mathematicians at gun point and forced them to review their slop

I strongly feel that there’s a certain ideological bend towards self hosting and that it clouds judgement.

Dude I can run Astra on my 20 dollar subscription. The leverage with that vs whatever Chinese model you can run in one GPU is not even comparable.

I almost always reach for the most performant model for any of my tasks because my return almost always pays off.

I made a prediction last year that there'd be a new UI protocol (like HTML) but for agents. I believe that custom or personalised UI's are going to be the new browser interface. More radically, I think browsers can be completely replaced. My news feed can be personalised to me, based on what AI thinks might be important from all sources like Reddit, X, HN.

> Second, this week, we’ll roll out a new monthly API credit to all Max and Team subscribers for use on the Claude Platform. Max 5x users will get $100 in credits per month, Max 20x users will get $200, and Team subscribers will receive up to $500, pooled across their users. These credits are designed to allow our users to experiment with building tools, apps, and agents that call our API. They can be used on any of our models. For more information, see our Help Center article.

Did anyone read this? We get free API credits on some plans now

I remember a friend asking me why LLMs suck so bad. She was using Haiku 4.5 and that poor model couldn't keep track of the context within 3 messages.

She said she was using Haiku 4.5 because she was advised to be careful with the spending.

I hate that model so much lol.

> Lions understand each other well enough to hunt as a coordinated pack.

This has no bearing to what I said. We can't understand lions because they are dumb. Sure they are smart enough to hunt in a pack.

My point was that lions communicate with each other using crude ways. They are not secretly intelligent or something