casey2

Globally, we barely use any energy. What we need is to do is solve geoengineering and cooling the planet so we can use much MORE energy.

No matter how efficient we get we won't be able to offer future generations a better quality of life if we don't use more.

It's a very unpragmatic decision and will likely lead to the entire industry getting slapped with utility regulation (if it can even survive). Akin to power plants that would only power factories in the 1880s.

There is no secret sauce, no moat. Many of Antropic's larger clients could build and serve better models if they wanted. They just cynically decided that coding, without a world model, and at high cost is the most important thing, they will find out quickly Google passes them how wrong they were.

They don't even have basic system visibility, the industry is far to immature to monopolize.

The idea that mathematicians progress math by discovering fundamentally different ways of thinking about it is closer to a hallucination than a meaningful statement about mathematics.

The answer from me is, yes.

In both cases this is caused by poorly (human-) designed software, that assumes you go through a similar development cycle to the author, would that be part of the spec? of course not. This is just the obvious end result of an industry and culture not taking formal correctness seriously well... ever.

And so the goalposts move, oh now we've always cared about user resources, AI is using too much, but in 3 months when it's better than all human programs at resource management what will they move onto? Did we forget that unused resources are wasted resources? Or can that only justify poorly human-written programs.

And who says AI doesn't create open problems. This unlocks thousands of high quality open problems.

Turns out the 'opne' in open AI wasn't referring to open source, but open problems!

I thought I did terrible 5, but jev got 0 in a row. then the slopcoded app says "Jev has won 2,613 of 3,300 games, this one included."

Though if you need very quick answers obviously humans can't compete.

Actually on further thought after getting 15, if you've seen the exact problem before you can answer quickly, so the usefulness is diminished to problems that don't need to be 100% correct, need to be solved very quickly (even routing might not need to be this quick), problem form often changes, but is still general knowledge, and very low marginal benifet for 99% correctness over 50%

The real moat deepseek has is the tiny KV cache. This makes it basically the only serious choice for large local models. I hope to be proven wrong!

That puts the cart before the horse, in the past these prestigious degrees signaled elite status, they are the people who decide where capital flows, if they couldn't get a job they'd just make one. More likely people haven't wised up, they just stopped making hiring decisions, leaving it to AI.

Perhaps for data points in similar extremes, but there are definitely a good many theorems that show there is reason to weight extreme outliers more heavily. And practical experience using them as a signal to test for measurement errors etc.

>The problem with trusting AI to learn a complex subject, which I've tried multiple times, is it will always at some point confidently give you the wrong explanation for something important and you will have no way to detect it. Its quite frustrating and that realization might not come for hours or days and you've built lots of false mental models that can be hard to untangle.

This is an amazing problem to have! Often, preAI, I'd reject models flat out since they weren't even convincing on their face. There is value to this even if it's not correct. How long were people stuck with the aether? a few days or months is nothing.

You can see why in his own words. "my field of research" emphasis on "My". Humans are great at constructing exploitative systems were all but a few get the shaft. The machinist smashed their ivory tower. For people concern with mathematics, from Platonists to Constructionists AI is a great development, it's only bad for elitists. Except not even then since we are all in the same boat now but the water-level has risen greatly!

since human hearing is lossy you can get whatever sound you like. In the context of a moat there is none for a sfx

Shocking that the current guitar market is so big, I wouldn't panic over a small project like this since it's still projected to grow