NewEntryHN

The filing indicates they are profitable...

Am I the only one who think that we are overestimating the hindsight of "AI insiders" in comparison to the rest of the world?

It seems that they themselves are discovering the capabilities of models purely empirically by training them, and just have a few months head start before they release the model and everyone else can witness those same capabilities.

What do they have that make their multi-years (if not multi-decades) predictions more insightful than any other observer?

> The Calif one is the most detailed. Also, no one used Claude.

be me

click link

typical ai-designed website

> So the Chinese labs have thrown a lifeline to the Western loss-making labs, and I just have no clue as to why.

Because contrarily to the author's assumption, all labs, Western or not, have sufficient skills to discover the optimizations anyway, and publishing or not is not actually that important?

Good. We need AI-bullish folks to test it boldly and then report whether it works or not.

This is hard to argue without a fine understanding of how much insight OpenAI had about the stab at the problem from the "public rumor" alone.

If there was any sort of coarse insight that "they're trying to solve it this way", then both those things can be true:

- The massive amount of compute from OpenAI re-discovering Buckmaster's work solely from the coarse insight (and solving the rest as well).

- OpenAI still acknowledging they basically scooped the coarse insight using compute, and they're willing to credit Buckmaster.

Buckmaster says "Concretely, what Levent and I did was to take the Cordoba and Martinez-Zoroa program, which achieved blowup results with rough forcing, and, with a great deal of help from LLMs, push it to smooth forcing and to the incompressible Euler equations".

Could that simply be the prompt they used at OpenAI? How "stolen" would the proof be in that case?

You don't need any reproduction. Assuming researchers are using LLMs, you should just see the number of jumps increase as models get better.

> without access to the original source code

All models in the leaderboard probably have had access to the original source code in their training data.

I'm not sure I understand how important "role perception" is when following instructions from a tool call rather than the user is currently a legitimate use-case (applying steps from documentation, or shell command instructions on stdout, or really anything that can be deduced from the content of a tool call).

Very easy for French speakers ahah

Maybe shadow hierarchy are still more productive than official ones? Looks like something that wouldn't have that many meetings.

Hmm I'm not sure why in an emergency situation accessing a webpage would be easier than making a phone call.

If the thing "outside of reality" ever reveals useful to explain anything about reality, then it becomes part of reality.

I think OP's question is more how could Newton's law "pass" a test any more than General Relativity would, considering that it's merely an edge case of GR?

Why is the article titled "Newton's law of gravity passes its biggest test" if it doesn't explain the movement more than MOND?