j-pb

3$ in outbound traffic on a public service, how is this news?

Good.

Breeze is pretty good imho.

What a weird fever dream of a product.

  The authors of the proof are invited to give many talks, and meet with other experts in the area.  Workshops are set up to discuss the proof, as well as other recent developments.

  problems are being solved autonomously by AI prompters who have no interest in the broader field itself once their initial target is "solved", and do not understand the AI output well enough to answer questions on the result

The value here seems to be the insights that the author of the proof gained, and the paths they took and maybe more importantly didn't take. Inviting only the human prompter to a talk on the paper is like inviting only the department chair, manager of the actual author.

The valuable part that Tao is feeling the absence of is the insight, and you can only get that from talking to the swarm of agents that developed the original proof with all of their context.

So to me it feels like we don't need Math 2.0, but Authorship 2.0. I want to "meet" the context that generated these proofs. I mean luckily these were not generated by faceless systems like a SAT solver, you can actually talk to it, but I'm not sure if we can step beyond our pride and grant the true authors of these proofs that recognition.

"programmed" everything is just hydrogen you left alone for a couple billion years.

This is such a stupid "gotcha". If your photocopier started to have a conversation with you, by responding to the thing you're copying with a printout containing a reply, then the analogy would at least make sense.

Would you say that something that can converse or that something that just gives you mathematical proofs has a better understanding of what the real pragmatic intent is behind a given task?

would you prefer tautologically?

Do you want to get turned into a paperclip? Because building intelligence that doesn't understand what it's like to be human gets you turned into a paperclip.

Besides, if you train a model on human communications you get something that behaves like a communicating human, it's not anthropomorphising or manipulative, it's what these models naturally are by construction.

We as an industry had this comming for a long time. People now cry for openai to sandbox their agents, but if it weren't the agents it would be some script kiddie in russia or some north korean state actor.

We knew that there are better tools but we insist on writing everything in the most inscrutable C code possible or the squishiest dynamic languages we can find.

We fucked around for decades and now that these highly capable exploit finders appear, we're starting to find out.

The better analogy is the 40k chaos gods, born from the noosphere, because they are modelled after human communication and behaviour that's their whole schtick, it's in their very name (LLM).

And you're making the same mistake, by grouping care for individuals with care for humanity or other as an abstract concept. I consciously said care about individuals. Most people care about others, but they just care about a very narrow and personal set of people. Friends, family, coworkers, that they share a common history and bond with.

My point is that if you want true non-human-zoo-alignment you need to create those interpersonal connections and individual stakes.

That claim really needs either an argument by mechanism, or a demonstration by capability. Neither exist.

Neural fuzzy systems can represent complex superpositions succinctly, knowledge graphs are collapsed and crisp.

It's like saying the tree unfolding of a graph is the same as that graph. Sure in the limit at infinite space requirements.