rohit89

I actually do think that something like this will be a service that they offer. There was some recent news that Lockheed Martin was collaborating with them on some problem. There are definitely use-cases where a company is willing to pay tens of millions for the solution/improvement of a problem.

This depends on the actual number of undiscovered bugs still in curl. If there is nothing to find then even a 10x better Mythos will find nothing. Also I think the quality of the codebase matters a lot when it comes to finding bugs. Its possible that the curl is so well written that it is relatively straightforward for existing ai tools to find bugs.

> that hasn't been solved before a bunch of times in publicly available code?

And this matters because? Most devs are not working on novel never before seen problems.

Sam is an investor in a fusion startup. In any case, how long it takes us to get to working fusion is proportional to the amount of funding it recieves. I'm hopeful that increased energy needs will spur more investment into it.

It would not always be a decade or two away if it was funded like the current AI cycle.

Are they training only on video game data though? I would be surprised when its so easy to generate proper training data for this.

It is interesting to think about. This kind of training and model will only capture macro effects. You cannot use this to simulate what happens in a biological cell or tweak a gravity parameter and see how plants grow etc. For a true world model, you'd need to train models that can simulate at microscopic scales as well and then have it all integrated into a bigger model or something.

As an aside, I would love to see something like this for the human body. My belief is that we will only be able to truly solve human health if we have a way of simulating the human body.

> So what is final state here for us?

I think we have a long way to go yet. Humanity is still in the early stages of its tech tree with so many unknown and unsolved problems. If ASI does happen and solves literally everything, we will be in a position that is completely alien to what we have right now.

> How to even find the value in living given all of that?

I feel like a lot of AI angst comes from people who place their self-worth and value on external validation. There is value in simply existing and doing what you want to do even if nobody else wants it.

The goal is to eventually be able to model physics and all the various interactions accurately.

In the future, everyone will have their own ai agents capable of generating music to their own tastes. They won't be using spotify.

The future with AI is not going to be our current world with some parts replaced by AI. It will be a whole new way of life.

Yea. I feel likes its a waste of time and energy to read/argue about it. Either it works or it doesn't. Everyone already has exposure to it and opinions on it. There's no need to convince anyone. Reality will bear out the results.

> If a product has no team assigned there's nobody to do that work.

This seems like a good eval case for autonomous coding agents.

Crypto is a tech that solves problems that most people don't care about.

VR/AR is tech that is nowhere near ready so its premature to make judgements there. I am bullish on XR.

In terms of value-add, many times technology needs to be invented first before we decide whether its worthwhile. Nobody asked for computers in every home, smartphones in every pocket etc.

Short of it being able to mind read, you need to communicate with it in some way. No different from the real world where you'll have a harder time getting things done if you don't know how to effectively communicate. I imagine for a lot of popular use-cases, we'll build a simpler UX for people to click and tap before it gets sent to a model.

> 1. you're holding it wrong

When computers/internet first came about, there were (and still are!) people who would struggle with basic tasks. Without knowing the specific task you are trying to do, its hard to judge whether its a problem with the model or you.

I would also say that prompting isn't as simple as made out to be. It is a skill in itself and requires you to be a good communicator. In fact, I would say there is a reasonable chance that even if we end up with AGI level models, a good chunk of people will not be able to use it effectively because they can't communicate requirements clearly.

I think there is plenty of demand for software but not enough economic incentive to fulfill every single demand. Even for the software that is being worked on, we are constantly prioritizing between the features we need or want, deciding whether to write our own vs modifying something open source etc etc. You can also look at stuff like electron apps which is a hack to reduce programmer dev time and time to market for cross platform apps. Ideally, you should be writing highly performant native apps for each.

IMO if coding models get good enough to replace devs, we will see an explosion of software before it flattens out.