resource0x

AI

The original appears to be written in Russian (there's a toggle in the heading). In Russian, it sounds quite good, I coudn't detect any smell at all. Sure, good writing style these days always raises suspicion. :-)

1/4 becomes a de facto standard, the companies will be expected to follow starting right now.

Playing the devil's advocate here. Suppose I use model A to do all heavy lifting (e.g. generating a bunch of good ideas) and then I go to the model B to complete the formalization. Accoring to a weird (unfair) tradition in math, the honors are attributed to the "last guy", which in this case is model B. That might have been a scenario OpenAI tried to avert. (Just a speculation)

> There are many of them on youtube.

Not as many as on HN. "Influencers" have agendas and the stream of income, or other self-interest. HN always comes off as a monolith, on any subject. Counter-arguments get ignored and downvoted to oblivion.

Dark matter is a pseudo-scientific variant of the "God of the gaps". Rather of acknowledging an obvious (default) assumption that the laws of Universe (including all "constants") depend on local conditions, the community prefers spending inordinate amounts of money on nebulous ideas.

Every time NVDA/goog/msft tanks, we see these kinds of articles.

Why did I assume someone has written an essay? Because he said so! Quoting:

> I do like his ideas (and I wrote similar things about platonic forms elsewhere)

What is dismissive about my interest to his write-up? (I'm sure it was a misunderstanding on your part, you don't need to apologize :-))

The ontological status of the equations is still unclear. BTW, if you can provide a link to your own essay, I would be interested :-)

But the equation is a platonic form! Otherwise, you will be introducing a third concept, which is unnecessary b/c it has no advantage over the traditional notion of "platonic form".

> It's an attractive framework, but as almost everything in philosophy it can easily be challenged.

Michael is aware of it. He insists that every speculation has to be experimentally tested. But no experiment of this kind will constitute a "proof" - someone can always "challenge" it. This is no different from a physical theory: every interpretation of QM is challenged by someone. :-)