pfbtgom

I recommend that you read the linked PDF before drawing any conclusions.

This is sort of a weird interpretation:

> One of the two main persons work at Anthropic and "almost" or "partially" solved the issue, but eventually didn't succeed

- It wasn't an Anthropic endorsed effort.

- Solving this class of problem means a march of progress A -> B -> C -> D. If a student turns in a test that jumps from A -> D without showing any work they're either brilliant or cheating (probably cheating). Further, each step of progress isn't the same proportion of effort. What if moving from C -> D was actually the smallest contribution and just required a novel perspective to make the breakthrough.

This part is wrong:

> An external person with just an excerpt of the chat and certainly less versed in Mathematics (than these 2) tackled the problem.

- it was a whole team at OpenAI working on the problem

- it wasn't a chat excerpt, it was more like their entire git repo and project progress reports

Many of the “no” comments here are very focused on the current state. The author seems to be looking at a longer time horizon of computing paradigms, for example invoking ENIAC. On that scale I tend to agree. Vibe coding has only been around a year or two and look how big of an impact it already has. Imagine what another 10 years of progress will look like.

In hard sci-if settings like The Expanse, would we expect that all of the electronics in space to be a few generations behind the state-of-the-art planetside to account for radiation hardening? Would the electronics be more likely to be installed inside of ships where presumably there is already radiation shielding for people (thinking sensor packages and hard points)?

I’m not sure how effective signal jamming would be against COTS quadcopters. It’s relatively easy to provide on-loss-of-signal instructions to the navigation microcontroller. Perhaps it could be a return to set location command or a home in on signal jammer and explode command.

With the release of GitHub’s Copilot, I wonder how far we are from ML identification of malicious repositories.

I think you have an interesting product, but I'm having serious issues with your marketing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How many of your estimated treatment effects have been supported by experiments? Do you have experiments demonstrating that your model generalizes? How accurate are your estimates compared to experimental results?

It's ironic that you're marketing a causal + analytics product without any data. Generating a narrative and basing it off of observational data is the typical trap that many causal claims fall into. Portraying yourselves as statistical experts and pushing unsubstantiated claims is misleading bordering on unethical.

This is the premise of the book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. Among other things, he explains System 1 in terms of popular cognitive biases. It's a good read.

This is 2005, not 2015.

I think that this definition of terroir is romanticized.

inextricably -> in a way that is impossible to disentangle or separate

Science seeks to disentangle the complexities of nature. Engineering is the application of those disentangled complexities to yield controlled results. Maybe one day we can engineer high-fidelity replicas of terroir-bound products.