Rudybega

Yeah, their native API reliability is absolutely horrible. Constant request failures. I've always had to go through Vertex or OpenRouter for any sort of heavy load.

Glad to help (I only really understand the implications of ETH well enough to summarize myself without assistance haha). I figured if I wanted simplified context, others might too.

To give some context:

Kakeya / local smoothing (math): The result would resolve the Kakeya conjecture and Stein’s restriction conjecture across all dimensions together. Mathematicians had been making progress one dimension at a time, so this would settle a whole family of central harmonic analysis problems at once.

ETH is false (computer science): ETH has been used as a computational hardness premise in hundreds of papers, so a disproof would undercut a large body of existing complexity results. It would also change what researchers think is achievable for efficient computation.

QCD existence (physics): It would give a rigorous mathematical foundation to the theory of the strong force, which physicists have used for decades without proving it’s well-defined. It also bears on a Millennium Prize Problem.

I haven't had this issue since like last year with frontier models. What are you using?

I use it as a drop in replacement for LLMs I had previously doing filtering and classification in a pipeline. It's loads cheaper and faster with roughly equivalent performance on my own internal tests. The confidence scores (which are also reasonably well calibrated on my data) are a super nice bonus.

I mean, if you have sufficiently well developed CI, all of those commits will 100% function. That's a part of even allowing the commit to go through.

I would guess a huge chunk of it is for internal testing/experimentation/model development.

They're starting to do things like spinning up wet labs for testing purposes, which requires a lot of hardware interfacing (hence that protocol they announced) and code.

It wouldn't shock me if the bulk of this code was for things typical users don't see.

> If the lawyer reports them to the police, but then the client challenges that on grounds of attorney-client privilege being broken, is "the LLM said it qualified" a valid reason that'll prevent the lawyer from being found at fault?

How about, the LLM flagged it, I reviewed it, and it clearly meets the standard for mandatory reporting.

If the LLM flags it (which in a sanely designed system should be a high bar with very few false positives) and they fail to review it for bad reasons, they could be liable.

I feel like neither of these scenarios are particularly hard to address.

Tokens don't need to represent text.

They are sequence to sequence models.

I mean, that's entirely possible. It's definitely less powerful evidence than the other two. The Mindspark RCT in particular seems pretty sound (6500 participants, statistically significant improved outcomes).

Imagine a drug that cures Alzheimer's. Does that improve the baseline cognitive level of the population? What about if we manage to find a cure for various intellectual disabilities (Down's, Fragile X, FAS, etc.). Does that improve the baseline cognitive level of the population? What if we mitigate some of the worst effects of aging on a population wide scale?

What if we achieve an understanding of how memories form in the brain and what factors distinguish individuals who have eidetic or near eidetic memory and can synthesize drugs or treatments that replicate that? What if we can find similar distinguishing factors for other cognitive domains (perception, visual spatial skills, etc.) and find drugs or treatments that improve those capabilities?

> but the opening sentence seems to suggest the cure to smartphones and AI having significant negative impacts on critical educational development is giving all kids pharmaceuticals.

You have to be operating extremely cynically for that to be your default interpretation of what I said, but go off.

If we make the kind of understanding gains that I'm positing (think actual accurate simulations of various biological systems), that cycle tightens dramatically.

Yeah man, that's a good faith interpretation of what I said! You've owned me and scored points, good job!

> But in just 20 years?

Ahh, I think this bit on my part may need some elaboration. Here's my main underlying belief:

We are systematizing biology and turning it into a computationally tractable domain. I think we're going to make more gains in our understanding of it in the next 20 years than we have in the entirety of human existence prior to this moment (that's mainly because our understanding until now has been remarkably poor).

I definitely don't disagree with screen or exposure or social media exposure being deleterious.

That said, I suspect this technology will allow us to study and mitigate those effects in ways we weren't previously capable of. That's in addition to the other broad swathe of things that should make us healthier and more intelligent (see some of my other posts here). I'm not particularly negative about our chances.