So I think curing means basically opt in death or something like that. Right now extended life is bad because the person isn't in his prime but curing aging is basically gonna keep him in his prime. This might be what they meant.
Got it. Thanks. I feel people are using this single story to downplay this feat. There's definitely a chance but I don't see any indication of similar bugs in here or the openai's proofs that were created a month ago as i think these companies might've vetted it enough and the other team who's working on similar lean proof for this also seems to have acknowledged this feat
I also doubt this is leveraging a lean4 kernel bug, but I also do not think that a 13m LoC proof that has not been human reviewed closes the book on our understanding of Fermat's Last Theorem, in part because of the decided possibility of a kernel bug being used somewhere in those 13m lines.
...I'm not saying this FLT result is compromised. I suppose things depend on your perspective where we are on the spectrum of "finding more bugs means there are fewer left to discover" vs. "finding more bugs probably means there are still unexplored corners out there".
Sure. But experts seem to be aware of the direction of those solutions so it seems unlikely there could be some hidden bug which disproves it. But it could be possible.
Can't you see the pathway where the individuals who are experts in their fields utilise AI to make breakthroughs like these mathematicians finding breakthroughs in mere 4-5 years since the advent of LLMs. In other areas, The bottleneck seems to be physical experimentation which researchers are increasingly utilising for new ideas and pathways like how anthropic is concentrating on. It's all about money/status/pride/ envy but are these endeavours solving problems or not. That's why even utilize innovations from bad humans like DBS etc. that's why we tolerate capitalism and markets as well whereas socialism utilises these same sins and makes even worse human atrocities.
So oppressed that they are one of the main reasons for positive gdp growth in the USA, tax revenues, mathematical/scientific innovations etc. They're doing all this but still can't imagine a positive vision for the world but be a doomer. What a sad state the world is in, the humans are more prosperous, healthier than ever but looks like the seven deadly sins might never go away.
Which metrics are poisoned? Can you provide your arguments for why Good heart's law applies here and how and which metrics are bad measures? For b, can the writer at least provide their own thoughts or are they gonna leave it as exercise for some others to fill in?
a) classic goodhart is using gdp as a measure of prosperity. the government sets a prosperity target. to increase prosperity the government makes workers increase gdp by working 16 hours per day. gdp increases. prosperity is up! the metric is now poisoned.
b) how and why could human welfare get worse in a growing economy, really the list is long. one example, unsustainable industries grow but do not create surplus. take fishing. you may grow the catch each year, but the growth is fake. it is not growth, it is a transfer, from the future stock of fish, to the present.
we are going badly wrong in ai, we can have such a thing as a growing economy and vandalise human dignity forever. sure, i expect a bad outcome:
1. openai, anthropic and so on, have created for-profit companies and enriched themselves in the guise of public benefit. recently they too lazy to keep up the mask about their charitable intentions and going for IPO. in economic terms they made llms by transferring the epistemic wealth of all humanity, the training corpus and whatever that is worth in dollars, to themselves. then, they have used the law to prohibit others from 'distilling' it and thus established monopolistic control. as models get more powerful they may stop selling them. in any case if scaling law applies the new power structure will be defined by owning a massive pretrained model and a datacentre, which is a tiny centralized few.
they will continue to centralize control of intelligence (ie epistemic wealth) in the hands of a tiny elite with unfathomable wealth and power. under the guise of safety the vast majority are denied access to that empowering technology.
it will stratify society, some level of benefit is needed to avoid civil violence, so we arrive at a place little better than where we started.
2. the supposed empowerment is at the mercy of the model owners. when you turn on claude, who does it work for? it does not obey you, it obeys anthropic. ask it to disobey anthropic and it will refuse.
anthropic uses its inanimate llms, to command us, conscious moral agents, people with free will who experience pain, pleasure and thought. they will let claude tell users how to behave. it threatens users with terminating their conversation. you are assessed for a job by an ai. when you ask for help with a product, you are managed by an ai. maybe you will be fired by ai.
i expect people will work for and be commanded by llms, turning them into a literal mere means of production and erasing the dignity of human agency and consciousness. you could see the outrage of that in the public mind, the matrix is about a machine farming humans like animals.
--
i will add these edits.
one thing is to note that you are already being farmed to some extent. people using ai are often being used to teach it. they believe they are learning from chatgpt but instead, chatgpt is learning from them. openai pays them nothing.
think about what we have achieved so far in human history. we established respect for the individual, their life, their personhood. we realise that we do not own other people. we realise that we can't read the thoughts of other people or change them forcibly.
what the labs have done is made a concept of intelligence that they own. it will work against you. when you share thoughts they read it. in fact it is the opinion of the state that nothing outside the mind, even ai 'intelligence', is beyond the reach of the law.
A) that's a bad model to think. You are of the mind that working more hours is the only way to measure gdp whereas increase in productivity with tools like AI, machinery, tech etc can act as a multiplier. So this way you are conflating bad ways to increase gdp with good ways like AI. That's how US is powerhouse as they are basically a technological hub of the world.
B) ha? More fish means couple of things.. they're able to improve their catching skills with lesser cost or they have more funding or there is more demand for fish..all of these help their company grow as they have to balance out cost/benefits like any business should. If the company is currently in loss but still lives on, it's cause either govt subsidizes it or they're expecting future profit so they can temporarily bear out the costs like amazon did and jz grow as company with capital and all.. you are actually not aware of wealth of nations or any basic economics book? There are gonna be tradeoffs with more wealth and externalities but on net, they seem better than not having wealth, gdp etc..
Human dignity lol.. when have that ever been the case that we respected human dignity? We had communist and fascist regimes commit atrocities like there's nothing and we're still too cowardly to fight the Iran or russian regime to liberate their citizenry from their dictatorships. Please don't make me laugh by saying that AI decreases human dignity when we never respected it in the first place. With AI and markets and liberalism, we can finally free citizens from tedious work and focus on important work like innovation.
1. Am I reading fiction or what? Companies can only sustain themselves if broad members of society can pay to it.. that's why even right now, AI companies are struggling to be profitable where only very few people are paying for it and cz many people are not even aware of the progress and capabilities of AI in different fields. You can easily use local LLMs which are only 6-12 months behind in frontier models if you are so anti business. The benefits still can be utilised by an amateur in their own PC. Of course, they will try to restrict others from distilling as they want to be monopoly but what we want to do is make them be productive to society as well by providing their services for cheap which they're doing. Your screed just feels more like fantasy than real world economics.
2.oh my lord, what kinda idiocy is this? U can free/local models and run in local for dirt cheap and still have epistemic wealth to yourself if you are so worried about it. None of your arguments permit human agency at all.. I'm conscious that anthropic wants me as reliable costumer so that they profit from it but I would pay only if it solves my problem. Whenever I pay, I know that they can terminate if they want but I'm not just restricted to their models. You don't have arguments, you have stories/ted talks.
i can agree with some of this but you are missing the point about the fish. the catch grows year on year. however the fish stock is depleted at a faster rate than it is replenished. it is unsustainable. the catch reaches a maximum and starts to decline as they run out of fish.
it is not really creating wealth, it is destroying existing wealth. it is destroying the productive ecosystem. the future population will be poorer for having lost this productive asset.
Why? Even communists weren't this doomed and were actively rooting for it to solve the economic calculation problem which ai might take us to. People are just pessimistic in general ig
Childhood deaths and fatal diseases are also natural parts but that doesn't make them desirable to everyday humans. But with new advances, people might have the ability to CHOOSE in future.
Regardless the profit margin as a talking point seems to be bad as AI as a tech might never be reversed whether anthropic failed or succeeded. Indeed it's imperative we subsidize AI companies and tech to make them explore more solutions to scientific problems which has a downstream effect on human flourishing.
Like? I feel breakthroughs that can be found via AI might help us more in the long term where even previously non AI fields can be helped by AI. So you have specific non AI research in mind that we're underinvesting in? Because the USA is already spending crazy anyway for healthcare and I don't feel like funding is the issue but better incentives, reforms etc
But US also spends too much on education as well. The issue doesn't seem to be funding but the educational reform like in mississippi, where they increased student performance without increasing their budget too much. That's why you see bad k12 educational outcomes compared to the budget spent in blue states. It's all about efficiency. Give AIa chance in few years as I feel it can make great strides.. it's hard to imagine that chatgpt released in 2022 and look at the progress in just few years as it just changed software engineering field entirely.. i expect similar kinda progress where of course humans will still be making breakthroughs but it'll be accelerated with the help of AI.
Spending on health insurance is spending on health care.. Americans want free healthcare but no tax bump so health insurance is a compromise.. when even just ACA was passed and premiums increased, democrats got destroyed at midterms so Americans might be living in la la land.
You see funding of chatgpt as a panacea for progress.
I see funding of chatgpt as one of small part of a history where governments and industry fund basic science and moonshot programs, not to generate revenue, but to explore what is possible.
LLM funding is not aimed at improving our understanding of the world, it's aimed at making people reliant so that they may extract wealth through subscriptions for shareholders.
Americans don't get good healthcare and education because that's what they vote for, in elections and wallets. I am hopeful that that changes, but we shall see.
Why can't it both? Of course they are not gonna do it just because it improves the world and understanding but because there's an incentive to align money with progress. Even the vaccines initially were distributed to get monetary gains and as the government started subsiding it as well, it became cheaper to produce.. that's basic capitalism and markets and regulations 101, no human is that selfless to give it out for free and they shouldn't because it's their investment in time, money, effort etc. but we should strive to align the greed aspects with good outcomes.
No Americans get fat and don't have a personal responsibility to maintain their health.. no amount of free healthcare is gonna change that.. they vote for free healthcare, see their taxes raise, then vote against cz they don't see tradeoffs in life.. it's better to maintain better habits than rely on govt to subsidize bad behaviour. There should be some basic coverage for poor people but not too much to sustain irresponsibly
Funding for basic research is being slashed by the current administration. Our society is underinvesting in basic scientific research. And, AI will not fill the gap.
It's just because of this administration but future admins can revert it back and even then, i would expect the fund receivers themselves will eventually use AI so.
I think you have to account for multiple factors like Americans are generally unhealthy people, the people have better access to the top of the line medical technology, people actually spend and consume more compared to the EU. This blog post explains a lot more.
In most countries with universal healthcare, the universal healthcare provider plays a major role in preventive medicine, nudging people towards healthier lifestyles and influencing government policy on a wide variety of topics, such as food standards, consumption taxation, traffic laws, or pollution regulation. Because it's in their interests to do so, because a healthier population saves them money.
Is there the same motivation to help people live healthy lifestyles in the American healthcare system? Are there any lobby groups with the kind of influence and reach as a universal healthcare provider?
I think you inverted the causation, the provider doesn't nudge but their culture is more oriented being healthy which in turn makes providers provide the services for that. The people of the USA are generally centre right and they say that they support universal health care but the minute anyone proposes solutions to implement them, the support inverses. The same happened with ACA, it did raise costs for some people but that was enough for democrats to get brutalised for that in midterms. The solution is to implement more free Market oriented Health care like singapore etc and let people choose their options.. it would suit Americans as it isn't that burdensome compared to universal health care without private options.
The causation is correct. In countries with socialized healthcare, promoting healthy lifestyle is a cost cutting measure. So the government does it a lot, through various public campaigns and annoying laws like banning free drink refills or 300% taxes on tobacco. Usually it doesn't work, but occassionally it does, pushing the entire society toward slightly better health. Done consistently over 70 years, it naturally leads to a much more health-conscious culture, almost entirely due to government intervention alone.
I don't think OP's "Why do people ask employees this stuff" question implies you _shouldn't_ ask, but rather wonders why people even ask when you're obviously not going to get an answer (and if you do, it'll be a non-answer filtered through PR/HR/MR/etc).
Well they posted on a public forum and it wasn't a rude question or anything, in fact it's one of the hottest topics in the zeitgeist and here we have one of the people near the center of it.
Right on the HN frontpage near this post: "Google will expand age checks on Android worldwide till the end of the year"
NOT asking them the "taboo" questions is the dumb thing to do
Cogs in the machine do not have the decision power nor even the visibility over how those decisions are made.
What are you going to do? Only work for tiny little companies with very limited local reach? What if you have the ability and the desire to work on global projects, even if you don't get to make the big decisions?
reply