itemize123

business laundromats

obviously the overlap is tiny so people are not excited.

And yes, nobody is that excited about vatsachak's mathematician-ism. it's just a thing he do. And now it's just a thing AI do.

it just means that the assumptions we are making in the first place is wrong? nothing here is a dead-end because essentially we are at the same place before. people might even go ahead and say now if it's n^1.5 what happens, what results can be true.

i feel like you are arguing there is -- even in the narrow utility of PROOFS -- there is a goodness in being an ostrich with its head in the sand. If that's true, people can still be that ostrich and pretend the bound is now n^1.9 or something.

it is, mainly for subscriptions.

ignoring op's out-of-place personal attacks, what about the world lab's model capability - do you agree?

no way. one is functionally (slightly overhyped) magic. another is better tool.

it's easy to want one

i agree, it's essentially copywriting

u end up with stack based heap likes anyways

unfortunately, the worse of both can be true at once.

if you are reading the comments - it's news to a lot of less-wired-in persons (like most of us)

and still they denied it - it only shows that we have little recourse.

I think it's worse - openai didn't even deny training on their exact manuscript (when they most likely opted out);

it's buried because due to the drama the evidence is scarce