Newtonian mechanics doesn't explain the why of itself, it explains why Kepler's laws are true, an explanation that won't make sense if you don't know what Kepler's laws are saying, and which won't hold any significance to you if you don't know why Kepler's laws are thought to be true.
A lesser known fact about the tournament is that Kasparov played bad chess. The cause was that he decided to practice against software engines that had simple exploitable flaws while Deep Blue was a hardware chess circuit that beat them all by a long way. Kasparov tried the exploits during the match and these were low strength moves in real chess, which he didn't realize he was playing, until too late unfortunately. If Kasparov had played normally he may have won or drawn.
The machine was disassembled shortly after the tournament and Kasparov never accepted the offer to play it again. As a result the true moment where a computer first bested the world champion is not recorded and is likely to have occurred in someone's living room.
A memory system is managed by the RL trained behavior, these systems use specific prompts and ordinary software to hardcode a policy. The RL version is usually more efficient, but it can't be improved or made more repeatable.
"He who loves the profit of the tyrant must hate the Commonwealth, and he who loves the Commonwealth must hate the profit of tyranny, for what profits the sovereign does not always profit the Commonwealth." - paraphrased from the anti-Machiavel.
That's about the level of sovereignty expressed in product-by-product donor protection.
I feel the intuition leads us astray here because the combined text of every science book ever written is much less than the size of a complete description of the human brain. To the hamburger of reason the library is a sesame seed.
Going by the public announcements, the original plan was to cut science funding but once Congress said "no," the backup plan became directing it towards non - human - scientist items like facilities operations and the Genesis program.
So people were getting deepseek responses with long waits and no thinking traces? That would be easy to prove, we'd get more than just claims from interested entities.
Despite being "corroborated by independent sources," it was impossible - because deepseek has a higher TPS, can return logits and reveals thinking. Distillation happens asynchronously.
Another way to look at it is that the rules of gravity already have a rule for "stuff falls down," and adding stuff is much less extraordinary of a band-aid than changing "falls" or "down."
I thought technology was supposed to liberate us from the fields, but it turns out that's what wealth is for, and the wealthy want us back in the fields (no more escape through special training or skill).
I am amazed at how a technical gloss can obscure basic rights. That's legal! It's in chemistry / agronomy books, freely available in libraries. I have the right to tell you how that is done, and you have the right to read what I write.
In principle, a computer can check a nonconstructive proof. I don't know if that's possible in Lean. The interpretation of proofs still assumes the consistency of their axioms.
Maybe the new heuristic auto tactics will lower the cost of finding the human proof of the four color theorem enough to be affordable in the current environment.