turzmo

If mathematicians didn't enjoy digging their own graves with formalization before, perhaps they will enjoy digging their own unmarked, mass graves now?

It seems to be a strange variation of Pascal's wager to me: both arguments make an extraordinary claim while neutralizing any rational discussion about it, by appealing to infinitely extreme outcomes.

Because context, at least in my experience, doesn't seem to encapsulate the sort of dynamism that I'm thinking of. Conversations are flat and repetitive. It still feels like a very good semantic search more than talking to an intelligent human.

I don't know if they will replace most humans the way you're imagining. I think the industry has done a very good job of selling this point, but that they are still quite far from this.

It is always a mistake to assume that because computers can do X, that they will be able do everything that a human that can do X is expected to be able to do.

Solving frontier math problems is mind boggling, but perhaps it says more about frontier math problems than it does about LLMs. Same with chess which was solved decades ago.

My experience is that LLMs can be useful but are underwhelming in terms of intelligence, namely the ability to quickly learn from experience and grow with you while you accomplish a task.

Thinking of them as beings is something we should move away from.

Some people find hard work intrinsically rewarding and would be unhappy phoning it in, perhaps even more disgruntled, and perhaps spending the same number of hours. This is highly personal and dependent on the job.

I believe part of the message is correct though. Remember that you are an employee doing a job, and nothing more, to any corporation.

What you do under that contract is up to you.

Paraphrasing Hardy, 'exposition is for second-rate minds'.

I don't believe this myself. But I do believe that if you've formed your very ideas about what is good and desirable on the basis of a culture that has held certain values dear for hundreds of years, and have fought against every doubt and difficulty in life for decades to mold yourself into that image, that it does not 'suck' that you are unable to adapt to a new reality overnight.

Very few people that would love to be craftsmen would love to be factory foremen. It is far too insensitive to the human experience to expect people to just deal.

If the end result of this is that within a few years, AI "does" all of the mathematics that humans do, and that there is nobody around that understands any of it, what was the point?

Due diligence — pretty standard acronym in this community.

I assume that will be a feature available for the higher tier subscriptions...

“Any future plateaus in capability are planned, for your safety”

Sure, why not, it’s just not selling the idea that money buys happiness…

Personal training services? Workout gear? Not sure you should have lead with that, these are expensive things with minimal impact.

I don't know, self-reported happiness seems like an awfully unreliable metric. For one, I've noticed that projecting unhappiness is much more of a faux pas in rich circles. On its own this could account for much of this relationship.