golly_ned

For years I've heard about this supposed relation between AI and drug discovery.

I can't tell -- has there been any real progress made? Or is this a supposed application of AI that is getting interest? What about this problem in particular makes it suitable to AI as opposed to any other?

Or is this just a matter of -- "AI can cure cancer and is Good For the World!"

They represent the ~99%+ of income. X is large enough that extremes are represented. Don't be fooled by the extremes.

Go after the achievable P75-P90 that's within your power.

80%+ of the article is not 'save money'. It's nuanced.

I'd add or emphasize being strategic about which roles within an organization are rewarded. These are usually roles with very clearly attributable impact to top-line or bottom-line metrics.

Much enablement, unblocking, capability-based, or risk reduction work is very difficult to interpret for the business decision-makers.

Massive cognitive offloading and possibly deeply net negative in terms of mathematician hours and attention depending on how far this goes.

What proportion have actually been verified by the mathematical community by their own standards of proof? There is dispute in general about what constitutes proof, and which statements qualify as having been proved.

But even formalization doesn't mean the formalization corresponds with the stated problem.

Managers can be even worse. I’ve seen an entire roadmap mostly AI generated. Director+ across the company approving based on it having the right keywords, without nuance or detail.

I’ve seen monthly and quarterly executing results AI generated with plainly wrong factual information.

I worked with someone like this for a few years, and it was the biggest mistake of my career.

He'd talk at me for 15 minutes if I asked him a yes or no question. He'd take over a room to talk and was constantly angry at the mistakes of others or why they're not doing things he wanted. He was incredibly controlling with me in particular. Any mistake I made he would try to call out in the group to shame me. I couldn't even go on vacation without him pointing out my absence as if I'm doing something wrong.

I had my first panic attack in my life about six months after joining the team. I started taking a very powerful and uncommonly used anti-depressant that first year that's especially good for anxiety. I gained 65 pounds from it and stopped being able to sleep naturally without medication.

My career was going fine. More responsibility, more prominence, more success in particularly visible positions. But he knew he was more technically proficient, and especially had a lot more experience with some of the technologies we were using, and became seethingly jealous. In a very tense cross-org, principal-to-principal design review for a document I'd written, he took over the room and ambushed me with tons of criticism. He had a chance to review it internally in our team, but didn't. He waited to try to make me look bad in front of a very powerful audience.

It didn't work. They just moved on from his discussion. He got angry at the rest of the room when the topic moved towards how the teams should work together instead of his the document itself, which he had more criticisms about. During a team retro, someone (not me) anonymously noted that down. He furiously glared at me.

After the big launch which was very successful, our team was celebrating and congratulating each other. Someone gave me lots of praise. He sat there with his mouth agape, incredulous that I was receiving praise. He said he couldn't believe what he was hearing.

My manager then rolled his eyes. He was sick of the fact there was conflict. He thought we two should just resolve it ourselves. The other guy was very useful to my manager when it came to operations review and didn't want to lose him.

All this completely wore me down. Eventually I broke down in tears in front of my manager (a new one) and senior manager. He must have been sent to anger management or something. He stopped outright attacking me.

For years I heard his voice whenever I tried to code or write a technical doc. Only in the past few years did that stop happening. It took away so much joy.

I learned I should have just gone straight to HR and said he was bullying me. I should've gone in with a few examples. Even if it doesn't end up being a credible, established case, and even though HR tends to try to punish people who present themselves as a potential risk to the company, at least it would have given him the right shock to be careful around me.

> Folks get mad at Musk, Zuckerberg, etc... if they're doing something illegal, ok yea that makes sense. If folks are mad about actions that are legal, it makes zero sense to be mad at the actor

You're claiming that legality is the necessary & sufficient condition for. Legal != Good, Right, Just, Moral, etc.

Many things are illegal, but still you'd have to be an immoral, evil asshole to do.

Given the professor's professional interest in cheating-catching tools, I'm suspecting wanting to get good, interesting data motivated a lot of their behavior here, even in ways he might not consciously realize.

> “ You seemed quite nervous”

This kind of thing is weird to call out. Your perception of a candidate’s emotions isn’t relevant. People are wired differently. Some people can bullshit with no nervousness at all. Some people can be highly skilled and not able to practice this away. It’s a matter of wiring.

Calling out actions and behaviors and words, observable reality, is fine. Emotions, no.

+1 to this at big tech.

H1B were no less skilled (and no less paid) than their US-based counterparts.

Personalized search results are not ipso facto unreliable.

Please stop with this psychoanalyis and mind reading with AI and human fear. It’s a thought terminating cliche at this point.

In this case, it’s much simpler and more human. Largely between two humans — buckmaster and Bubeck. The interesting question is what the role of contribution and credit for research in the ai world.

The capabilities of AI aren’t even in question in this case.

Very strangely, they said something directly contradictory. initially that it was impossible to rule out whether bucmkaster’s conversations went into training data. Now they claim the opposite with full confidence.

Where did OpenAI say this?

And it still leaves open the question of the prompt itself, which can just as easily encode information about the same knowledge.