Because most mathematicians have not migrated to being AI native like most software engineers did. My post is trying to point out that these people's mind is still fixed in how the old world works and is not focused on…
I disagree with the idea that they require serving both roles in order to be considered a proof.
>The permissible shortcuts depend on who you are and what your values are. To solve this—to solve alignment—is irreducible complexity. This is why open source and decentralization of LLMs is important. Everyone can have…
Having a device that can distribute ads to consumers is a distribution channel. Measuring ad impressions is a core part of ad distribution.
This is why we may see the role of people wanting to advance mathematics instead of trying to do proofs themselves to push the frontier instead focus on improving these models to be capable of advancing mathematics.
>The first assumption is wrong because to really solve a mathematical problem, providing a mere answer (even if formally certified) is not sufficient. What is missing is an intelligible proof that human mathematicians…
The market decides as it does for everything else. >When almost anyone can build software, the organizations that win will not be the ones that build the most It's not possible to A/B test a huge amount of software. The…
Are those people working on products or platforms?
>but a lot of folks sure like to create a strawman that anyone who wants to regulate OpenAI is somehow an EA/MIRI weirdo Anytime I see a random person on X who makes these kind of safety alarmism posts 90% of the time…
>I'd urge reading up on revealed preference and product discovery I'm not sure what point you are contesting. >It's worth picking this apart. They were rhetorical questions. >price-inelastic demand With this you could…
>I don't recall asking Companies can develop new products without your advice. In fact consumers often don't know what they want. >people will pay whatever the price is Then why do businesses have sales? If prices don't…
How is it insane. Owning distribution channels has been valuable since the beginning of commerce. It's no different than a newspaper company saying they own the paper so they have the power to print ads in it.
LLMs are good at finding the needle in the haystack. All efforts now should be in figuring out how to make LLMs get as good as possible at math.
My phone clearly shows me when I'm on 5G vs 5G mmWave.
>the world agreeing to self-destruct their valuations Did OpenAI releasing GPT-2 self destruct their billion dollar valuation or is it higher than ever today at $900B. The idea that releasing weights kills the future…
So they are able to get permits in parallel with building the the datacenter. That seems like a net good.
Have you tried its image search? It's pretty good compared to its competitors. Google's image search fell off as they severely nerfed it.
You don't have to read 32 million lines. You can just look at what got proved. The proof checker lets you trust those millions of lines you did not read.
We are already there. Current AI is definitely capable of collecting new data and start training on that data to get a better model.
OpenAI avoids this but formally verifying the proof. https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler
>but no one understands it, did it make a sound? Does your "one" only contain humans or does it also contain other AI systems. AI math is not a single monolithic thing, but a distributed one. I see value in sharing…
There are many points. >Building things we don’t understand is a sure path to facing consequences we can’t predict. We don't understand all of physics yet we were able to do plenty. Even before Newtonian physics we were…
Linux distros that do use swap files do so statically. It doesn't handle dynamically growing and shrinking it like other operating systems.
Anthropic should not be the moral arbitrator of which research should and shouldn't be allowed. They even think just writing a grant itself of research they don't like needs to be stopped.
>you don't need to anything more than this You also have to check for things like sorry or defining axioms.
Because most mathematicians have not migrated to being AI native like most software engineers did. My post is trying to point out that these people's mind is still fixed in how the old world works and is not focused on…
I disagree with the idea that they require serving both roles in order to be considered a proof.
>The permissible shortcuts depend on who you are and what your values are. To solve this—to solve alignment—is irreducible complexity. This is why open source and decentralization of LLMs is important. Everyone can have…
Having a device that can distribute ads to consumers is a distribution channel. Measuring ad impressions is a core part of ad distribution.
This is why we may see the role of people wanting to advance mathematics instead of trying to do proofs themselves to push the frontier instead focus on improving these models to be capable of advancing mathematics.
>The first assumption is wrong because to really solve a mathematical problem, providing a mere answer (even if formally certified) is not sufficient. What is missing is an intelligible proof that human mathematicians…
The market decides as it does for everything else. >When almost anyone can build software, the organizations that win will not be the ones that build the most It's not possible to A/B test a huge amount of software. The…
Are those people working on products or platforms?
>but a lot of folks sure like to create a strawman that anyone who wants to regulate OpenAI is somehow an EA/MIRI weirdo Anytime I see a random person on X who makes these kind of safety alarmism posts 90% of the time…
>I'd urge reading up on revealed preference and product discovery I'm not sure what point you are contesting. >It's worth picking this apart. They were rhetorical questions. >price-inelastic demand With this you could…
>I don't recall asking Companies can develop new products without your advice. In fact consumers often don't know what they want. >people will pay whatever the price is Then why do businesses have sales? If prices don't…
How is it insane. Owning distribution channels has been valuable since the beginning of commerce. It's no different than a newspaper company saying they own the paper so they have the power to print ads in it.
LLMs are good at finding the needle in the haystack. All efforts now should be in figuring out how to make LLMs get as good as possible at math.
My phone clearly shows me when I'm on 5G vs 5G mmWave.
>the world agreeing to self-destruct their valuations Did OpenAI releasing GPT-2 self destruct their billion dollar valuation or is it higher than ever today at $900B. The idea that releasing weights kills the future…
So they are able to get permits in parallel with building the the datacenter. That seems like a net good.
Have you tried its image search? It's pretty good compared to its competitors. Google's image search fell off as they severely nerfed it.
You don't have to read 32 million lines. You can just look at what got proved. The proof checker lets you trust those millions of lines you did not read.
We are already there. Current AI is definitely capable of collecting new data and start training on that data to get a better model.
OpenAI avoids this but formally verifying the proof. https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler
>but no one understands it, did it make a sound? Does your "one" only contain humans or does it also contain other AI systems. AI math is not a single monolithic thing, but a distributed one. I see value in sharing…
There are many points. >Building things we don’t understand is a sure path to facing consequences we can’t predict. We don't understand all of physics yet we were able to do plenty. Even before Newtonian physics we were…
Linux distros that do use swap files do so statically. It doesn't handle dynamically growing and shrinking it like other operating systems.
Anthropic should not be the moral arbitrator of which research should and shouldn't be allowed. They even think just writing a grant itself of research they don't like needs to be stopped.
>you don't need to anything more than this You also have to check for things like sorry or defining axioms.