isomorphic_duck

An idea to start could be something along the lines of an agent given tasks incrementally, where the agent would be required to extend/generalize a piece of functionality. A possible reward could then be the amount of code the agent had to add/remove to complete the task.

Not all points being collinear does NOT mean that all 3-tuples of points are non-collinear! The hypothesis of the theorem is the former. And what it proves is that there is at least one such 3-tuple.

A key point I feel that’s missing from the discourse is that alignment/safety is basically an impossible problem as of now. Even the “guardrails” that these closed-weights frontier labs set in are laughably primitive which can provably be broken through.

The experimental part of Deep Learning has really outdone itself and is far ahead of theory. We have very little understanding of why these particular architectural choices work. The only “safe” way forward is to stop all development until theory catches up, but that’s never happening.

how does biology depend on "dogma and mysticism"? I am really curious - a Google search yielded nothing much relevant.

Why did you make a new account to spam AI comments?

I didn’t think I would see this take on HN of all places. You can’t appreciate Higher Topos Theory before spending a decade’s worth of effort in pure math - does that make much of Modern Algebraic Geometry “garbage”?

It might be more helpful to think of it as small changes in “genome-vector” taking place across generations of the species with the filter of it being not bad enough to cause extinction of the bespoke variation, as opposed to evolving towards more fitness as an optimisation objective. When thought of like this, one can imagine how high-dimensional the “feature”-space becomes, which leads to such intricate engineering we see in nature.

> I've had Claude fuck over clean well documented code-bases for no reason

How exactly do you define "fucking over", and why do you suspect this "fucking" was done as a result of a faulty trigger as opposed to the inability of LLMs to write maintainable, extensible code?

"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."

I am not an astrophysicist, but I have read that the thick layer of ice is supposed to protect the miles-deep ocean against radiation, which might harbour life.

We operate and think about subjects like Higher Topos Theory, Information Geometry and Algebraic Topology, which are several layers of abstractions removed from anything that can be termed as a skill “specialised to our survival”.

You have to understand that the median human is terrible at (almost) everything. Humans, the only examples of general intelligence we know, are economically valuable precisely because they can train themselves to specialise at a (relatively) narrow task over time. You don’t measure how good a coding model is by how well it programs relative to Doctors, or how well it can prove theorems relative to baristas, or how well it can write coherent novels relative to programmers. That would be a dumb metric.

If Claude Mythos and Fable 5 are the same underlying models just with different safeguards, I fail to see how TerminalBench has them at different scores.