nezi

I never said going outside to meet people, I said that you can do those activities with people to support friendships. You probably have to establish the acquaintance somewhere else first. Like sports or an art class or something else in the community.

The worms can cause issues. I'd rather no worms.

If your whole personality is derived from abstract intelligence then you will have little to form relationships with others since AI is better than people at those things.

But there is a whole world of experience outside of abstract intelligence. Go to a zoo, go camping, enjoy food, enjoy art, enjoy sports. All these activities support friendships.

The relationships formed from online forms, open source contribution and IRC won’t be created. But these sort of online mostly relationships were only forged for a couple generations.

I hope your human experience involves more than abstract reasoning and programming and you can connect to others with more visceral human experience than text over the internet.

I don’t think people will buy and eat twice as much because of this. How would they feel the nutrition deficiency and then eat more? People feel full by amount they eat not by how much nutrients are in the food.

Though it’s probably true that the industry is optimizing for raw yield at the expense of nutrient density.

How many preschools and petting zoos could you put on 200 hectares?

There are higher heavy metal levels in non dairy based protein supplements.

There are a lot of medical problems that can make life miserable that won't kill you that are excluded from your simple objective of "how many years am I breathing."

The city with no redwoods?

Buy a guzzler get guzzled I guess?

Is this the same "sandbox" that the agents escaped to hack HuggingFace?

Tools don’t turn around and scoop you. What OpenAI did here was use the same tool that the researcher did which might have coupled their work together.

I think it's a useful analogy to compare OpenAI to a human collaborator. These researchers willingly collaborated with an OpenAI model, giving it ideas, and OpenAI provided useful replies. Then, OpenAI goes ahead and publishes work along the lines of this collaboration, without attributing the researchers. If OpenAI was in fact a human researcher, this would be highly unethical.

Now, OpenAI is claiming that the model it used to generate the result was not trained on these collaborative communications with the researcher. This is a technical argument that is impossible to verify as an OpenAI outsider, and probably difficult to verify even for internal OpenAI employees. Provenance is hard to track - you would hope OpenAI has very good tools for this, but a full data trail of all inputs is difficult to trace through.

Another interesting thing to consider is if instead of OpenAI doing this, it was another research mathematician A using an OpenAI model just like the internal group at OpenAI did to publish these results. What if the model A used was trained with unpublished communications with other researchers B who were working on the same problem? Should researcher A technically include B as coauthors? How could they do this when they do not know the communications B had with OpenAI? In this scenario OpenAI, as a middle man, has laundered information from B to A, stripping out attribution. A scooped B without even knowing it!

Given that Tristan has said that the proofs that LLMs come up with are mostly "slop" and not up to the standard that human written papers achieve, maybe OpenAI needs an expert like him more than you think to get the result published?

How much investment has gone into OpenAI versus mathematics research in 2025 for example? Probably 100x?

The AI results are clearly impressive. But these sorts of things are also in the ballpark of what human effort could solve given enough attention and time. Though it is hard to say.