timmg

And most of the "readers" will be AI!

I just had Claude go through it for me, so I could ask questions about it. We're in such a unique situation in the world now.

I really hope so. Honestly.

Trump may accidentally be the best thing that happened to Europe. (I think a lot of the Chinese give him credit, due to his behavior in his first term.)

As a non-mathematician, I've been wondering if LLMs will be able to leverage their knowledge across all domains to help build a "simplified/unified" version of math.

Like, I think there have been attempts at this across the field. (I could be wrong!) But it requires a lot of labor and a lot of cross domain knowledge to complete. Both things that AI have.

I wonder if this means Carbon is DOA.

I was excited to see what it would be. But I don't think I can argue that it makes as much sense anymore.

My gut reaction is that this is not a good idea.

But I could imagine a scenario where you are required to release weights for publicly-used models after N years. Kinda like how drugs have a limited patent.

Not sure what N should be. But it would make for an interesting rule.

Dude. Electric cars have existed since the 1800s. Musk was the one that actually made them a practical thing. And most of the rest of the world is well on their way to electrifying their transportation.

What I don’t get: this letter seems to argue that if a human had solved this problem then that wouldn’t be the case (?)

Well: do they listen to the evaluators?

I think there are any number of reasons a "safety" person could be concerned about any state of the art models. And so I would expect at least one of those to apply to any model.

The question then is: do we stop when the safety people say to (they will) or not?

I understand why (probably several reasons) they are taking this approach. But I don't think it is the right approach and I don't think it will work.

First: if they are unilaterally doing it: what about their competitors? Is this a chance for OpenAI to pass them? Or China? If either did, would that be a net-benefit for them or the world?

Maybe this is a ploy for "regulatory capture". And that might help them in the short term. But the rest of the world will continue on. Honestly, it isn't clear to me right now if the winning strategy has as much to do with being the smartest company or simply the one that can command the most compute.

If Anthropic fumbles their IPO and OpenAI scoops them, I don't think I will be happy.

I’m not a math researcher, so I can’t say. But in bird culture we’d call this a dick move.

I think it was a pretty questionable thing to do by trying to front-run these researchers even if they didn’t make use of their techniques. The fact that they may have inadvertently “borrowed” their work via training data makes it much worse.

OpenAI’s behavior here — even if you only consider [their] side of the story — was (at best) in bad taste.

Interesting that both said “more tomorrow”. If someone accused me of something I didn’t do I’d be pretty clear about it right away.

If I needed to get my story straight, well, it might take a little time and coordination…

Same experience.

As a former Googler, I wouldn't at all be surprised if this is an integration that is "planned" -- but just not done yet.

And some good handful of people are planning to wring a promo out of work. "Implemented weather UI in Android that is 63% more accurate." ;)