jhanschoo

Note that Argon was rolled out for IDEs for people on paid AI Pro on Oct 15/Oct 16 (a couple days after Ultra users), but of course, usage limits are extremely low

Hmm you're right it's no more rigorous what I said. (For each positive number the expression must eventually, after finitely many terms, always be smaller than that number thereafter)

But you're not right in that the upper bound of that expression eventually stops decreasing, in fact for simple f and g as long as f is positive and eventually bounded by g the expression will decrease infinitely often if my intuition is correct

Nitpick:

s/must shrink/must eventually shrink, after finitely many n/

Equivalently, must go to zero in the limit.

Don't forget some people go out to public places with their kids

With a Type-C Class S Mk I harness.

In the context of this discussion, rationalist should be taken to refer to people who are or have been active on LessWrong

Oh God, that's why pastors keep giving long-winded sermons that are claim after claim after claim and without any argumentative structure (and divine inspiration stands in for self-belief in one's own intelligence)

Of course, bison was already taken

Assuming that you mean dramatic in the sense of a sudden, singular event in time which many societies and value systems were upended, why do you think that was the case for the Roman Empire?

To add on, importantly, when Gebru called them stochastic parrots, CoT technique was not published yet, and LLMs had finite computational depth per emitted token, and that architectural limitation was a large contributor to hallucinations. But if you give a sufficiently general LLM file read/write (or arbitrary memory storage) and CoT before having to output a token, it is Turing-complete. Architecturally in principle you can have models that are accurate on studied domains, the question being how to grow a model that achieves this by reading literature and cheap RL on experiments, rather than curated design.

What do you mean by a "recursion bug"? The terminology does not occur in the article so it seems to be a term that means something to you that is not very clear to me.

> The problem is, how trustworthy are proof checkers? Are there bugs? And is the underlying theory itself free of paradoxes and unknowables and mathematical "bugs" that can be exploited? Imagine a human mathematician hell bent on deceiving other mathematicians - would we trust their breakthroughs, even with a verifier?

---

> Autumn of verified Lean kernels

Have you read this section (and immediately following sections) in the article? It seems that it partly addresses your thoughts. Perhaps you should comment replying to it.

> No one succeeds in making accurate predictions of the future over a 40 year time scale.

The sports analogy holds; the future location of the ball may be uncertain, but that is the student's target, and not overcommitting to the present location of the ball. The commenter is expressing disappointment that the commentary seems to be reacting to the present too much.

Yes, TCS is theoretical computer science, I commonly use that acronym too.

Assuming that by this you mean giving end-users tokens, you can't file giving tokens away under a cash flow of investing activities line.