generalizations

Better late than never.

Some of us have been taking this approach for literally years now.

The actual answer is that they are in fact planning to do this. Dario has already talked about being the 'last company' or so. It's on their radar and they will be taking a shot at it.

I'm aware it was his response, back when he thought that an LLM couldn't possibly actually match his own intelligence. The 180 as soon as the AI did the whole proof without him is telling.

"the way OpenAI is doing it" - unfortunately while mathematicians have had an internal culture of not stepping on each other's toes, their ingroup is still susceptible to the same disruption as every other field as AI shows up to eat their lunch.

You can either get with the program and discover this is the greatest opportunity in the history of mankind to accelerate knowledge, or, you can cry over your lost prestige. Terry has chosen the latter.

Better approach: "holy sh*t, I can solve way harder math problems now". I bet openai would have loved to have Terry on their team leading the 'solve math' department.

It's telling that isn't his response.

They are so desperate for claude to be good at maths, like chatgpt. But claude is optimized for quick, pragmatic results and chatgpt is trained to be careful. There is a reason the best anthropic could do was an organized search - not real mathematics.

I haven't seen much in the way of benchmarks of those smaller quants. How does it compare to e.g. various generations of Opus?

We already established precedent (Biden election results disputes) that we don't get to question how fair the elections are.

You're making ad hominem comments about me; your argument about the degrees is making some heavy assumptions that such things won't be massively changed by AI.

And you're taking the pencil comment weirdly literally, like it apparently went completely over your head. We're clearly talking past each other. I don't see any purpose to talking about this further.

It's interesting because it clarifies that the problem here isn't the kid's education; the 'problem' is that teachers and colleges are upset that they are no longer offering something valuable.

The kids are fine; the rent seekers aren't.

And to your larger point: the entire university/graduate/lab/scientific system was created to formalize what was originally citizen scientists trying to understand the world from their basements. Scientific journals are just a formalization of nerds writing letters to each other about what they figured out. Consider from first principles how much of what exists now actually still serves that original purpose.

You want it to be a jobs program? Sounds good. Take their computers away and make them use pencils and you can create even more jobs.

You want to do science? Figure out how to do science. You want the kids to learn? Figure out how to teach them.

Just don't protect a jobs program under the guise of something nobler.

Of course what's interesting is that when viewed from the perspective of 'I have a kid and I'm willing to orchestrate their education myself', AI means the kid can get an education unheard-of even ten years ago. Personal, genius-level tutor, expert in any subject in which the kid can muster a question.

The only people really having a crisis here are teachers who want to feel relevant.

That's only relevant insofar as it can be a long time before the commercial viability is realized or apparent.

If an AI can make 100 commercially unviable discoveries (for now) on its way to each immediately commercially viable discovery, that's great - bank them in the discovery library for later.

Still doesn't mean we need mathematicians doing everything with pencils instead.

Very cool. Did you also try using the karpathy autoresearch? How do you think this compares?

So it begins.

Less so, here.