This is a step beyond baseless predictions. Tao also had a "weird" "hypothetical" comment about LLMs solving complex proofs with impossible to human verify Lean.
There are theorems like that now, like de Grey's lower bound for the Hadwiger-Nelson (unit distance graph) problem. He used a SAT solver to check that a certain graph with 1581(?) vertices is not 4-colorable. There's no way for a human to check that.
Even simpler, imagine Anthropic announces Goldbach's conjecture is false and they have a billion digit counterexample. Anyone can download it (300MB compressed), but how do you check it?
Doron Zeilberger for decades has expected incomprehensible computer proofs to eventually take over mathematics.
I understand the struggle, but I feel like so many of these projects are going to ban AI contributions right before it starts getting undeniably better than humans.
The fundamental flaw in all these style arguments against core employment is people's personal desire to have a straight forward path for survival that doesn't involve a lot of strategic thought.
Its hard for highly intelligent people to understand that others simply DGAF. They just want their paycheck and they don't want to think about it deeply.
Thought leaders have existed since the dawn of human history. There were always scuffles at the top, but there were plenty of people that just went about their business, filling their roles and doing their jobs for the tribe.
> The fundamental flaw in all these style arguments against core employment is people's personal desire to have a straight forward path for survival that doesn't involve a lot of strategic thought.
One of the most popular alternatives proposed is Universal Basic Income, where you just get a sum of money periodically. That's more straight forward for survival than holding down a job, and worrying about layoffs.
Agents are getting good but professing they are surpassing you in domain and architectural knowledge with no special prompting is basically self reporting at this point. That could be your job wasn't that complicated or your personal knowledge wasn't that strong, either way, same result.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure we will get to all three of these pillars, probably by next year. I am not naive.
Hopefully we never do something silly like making a lead pushing machine that operates at high velocity, then mass produce it, what a terrible precedence that would set.
Anecdotal, of course, but the biggest change I ever made in my life was right before bed: take a screaming hot shower with dim lighting. I'd say 95% of the time, I get in bed and just pass out and have no real memory of time passing before falling asleep.
Increasing skin temperature is known to induce sleep (can't find a source currently, sorry). Something about your skin being warmer allowing your body to cool more effectively, I think.
So a hot shower before bed is actually great for sleep, because you get the increased skin temp, relaxed muscles from the warm water, and general relaxation because showers are (for many people) relaxing.
That's funny, I find it much easier to fall asleep in a cold environment. Then again, I also like to use a heavy blanket, so maybe it's the weight more than the cold that's helping me.
I think that's also consistent with the idea behind a hot shower. The shower doesn't help by increasing your body temperature, in fact it does the opposite. The hot shower induces the body to try to cool down, so near-skin blood vessels swell, and that dumps heat into the cold air, which reduces your core temperature, and a reduced core temperature helps you fall asleep.
I think where I read about this was Why We Sleep from Matthew Walker. But he suggests just washing your face with warm water, as opposed to a shower.
Hot shower heats up your body, which causes it to direct blood away from the core to cool it down so it doesn't overheat. Dropping core temp triggers the brain to ramp up melatonin production. Or so I heard.
Conversely, when the temperature drops, your body directs blood away from your hands and legs because core has higher priority for survival
Yes, there was sadly a mismatch between the morality they thought existed vs what actually existed :(. Also, probably vastly underestimated global apathy.
We got extremely, extremely lucky that society is as resilient as it's proven to be against fake news. I don't think very many people predicted that it simply wouldn't matter when photorealistic compromising images of whoever you don't like became available for $5.
> I don't think very many people predicted that it simply wouldn't matter when photorealistic compromising images of whoever you don't like
This goes hand-in-hand with the widespread death of belief in absolute truth in the US and other western nations.
If this technology were released during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I'd wager it would have had the impact most of us expected it to have, at least for a little while.
reply