z7
Joined 4 years ago
Joined 4 years ago
I checked the developer's X account, they have written numerous posts about formal verification, so this specific claim ("without realising that said field exists") seems to be false.
"Frontier models today perform very poorly with a minimal harness. However if big labs start directly targeting the benchmark like they did for ARC-2, numbers will go up fast."
I'm not sure how many AI researchers would find this accurate. It seems to me that under conditions of ambiguity people often default to describing their preferred version of reality.
There's also a denominator problem. The mileage figure appears to be cumulative miles "as of November," while the crashes are drawn from a specific July-November window in Austin. It's not clear that those miles line up with the same geography and time period.
The sample size is tiny (nine crashes), uncertainty is huge, and the analysis doesn't distinguish between at-fault and not-at-fault incidents, or between preventable and non-preventable ones.
Also, the comparison to Waymo is stated without harmonizing crash definitions and reporting practices.
What about the 1953 CIA/MI6 coup that overthrew Iran's elected prime minister?
Why state this as absolute fact? Seems a bit lacking in epistemic humility.
You're leaving this out?
On 26 February 2026, the Administrative Court of Cologne (Verwaltungsgericht Köln) ordered Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), in interim proceedings, to refrain from classifying and treating the AfD as a “confirmed right-wing extremist organisation” pending the conclusion of the main proceedings at first instance.
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/afd-einstufung...