More: after OAI've mangled whatever value is left of the results (once again), HN could start braying for the training data/weights. Or even the prompts

Sashas of the world, unite!

Gerko, to donate GPUs for openweight serving

Elbakyan, to release some gpt7 related torrents

Others? Wei?

On UDC, internally they had Alexander Wei, Hongxun Wu, Chen Lijie. TCS people. As gobetweens to Daniel Litt.

On N-S I think nobody internally felt confident enough to publicly step up. So Bubeck had to wing it.

It remains to be seen which of the big names will work with whom inside the org

And why have the Nobel Prize winners been silent (or taken post-Nobel bets contrary to the current consensus ie Hinton-Hassabis)?

Taking GP at his word, I'd be more terrified if Oai had identified one hundred NEW open problems..

In contrast with Fields Medallists, some Nobelists get the prize for something they'd eventually NOT be (in)famous for. Like Josephson. In hindsight, will it be because they found out, as young unknowns, how to explore underappreciated avenues without millions in dedicated funds (uh encouragement).. ??

GP, did you? Get the prize for the question you are most proud of.

Interesting tangents:

1. OpenAI/Anthropic and their friends in high academia are like Ford. Their supervisees (2nd class citizens of the Borg, if not what you mean by "the people") can afford to validate frontiers. Detractors may wish for something like Fordlandia to happen (ie the climate becoming an "unforeseen" but critical issue).

2.

>The claim that universities can simply choose important problems that are cheap to validate is also more difficult than it sounds.

This sounds like a polarization of the mathematician electorate. oAI/Anthropic becoming the far right. Most-famous and Nonfamous academics alike join the other side (decentralizers). Barely second tier academics (Witten, Gowers, Hairer for some strange reason) become alt-right. Centrists migrate to silicon valley en masse, only indirectly complicit with the far right in a role of "cognitive swing(vot)ing"

We're in for a world of Trickle-down Sapience!

In the other, non-hacker news, math-Mamdani becomes vice-chancellor of Oxford, purges PPE ("campaign donations" from Gerko?). BRCS silently become net-token-exporters. Token rates in India/Japan/Korea exceed even Canada

you'll soon find out that I'm _also_ the bond market

--Scott "The House" Bessent maybe?

If Socrates were alive today, he'd encourage engineers to internalise the spigot algorithm

Then, like a MENTAT, they'd be able to tell you the 16afedf97fd4th digit of pi when prod

In hex, naturally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey%E2%80%93Borwein%E2%80%9...

>The BBP formula gives rise to a spigot algorithm for computing the nth base-16 (hexadecimal) digit of π (and therefore also the 4nth binary digit of π) WITHOUT computing the preceding digits.

I have a huge respect for Fabrice Bellard for creating his own optimized version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellard's_formula

Reminds me of the old adage that if a famous person from the ancient world were alive today, they'd either be very, very old -- or not famous.

>The power to understand and predict the quantities of the world should not be restricted to those with a freakish knack for manipulating abstract symbols.

With powerful tools of the type Bret envisions, humans, in aggregate, might have a chance of staying ahead of LLMs at even frontier math..

(But maybe that wouldn't fare so well against future world-models, who knows)

here might be something to point those tools at--- if one isn't fixated on "predictions", or "real world" https://youtu.be/fec8qSBiM4k

In a socialist world, tax the engineer(ing manager) who is productive at LLMs to pay other engineers who aren't. In tokens

In a capitalist world, do the same, but in other currency.

Taking extra steps (but fewer than you and many propose, which includes paying academics, university HR, test-providers, career advisors, recruiters, board members, grant-reviewers etc etc), the... LLM simply charges the productive engineers more per token.. if you suck, you get proportionately more tokens until you don't, then you pay back.

If there isn't a helpful joke in that, find it

There could be meta-faith, if you insert engineering into

Mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, march in one front [lockstep]. Whichever lags behind is drawn after. Whichever hastens ahead helps on the others...

--Karl Schwarzschild

The problem or nonproblem before (elite) software engineers were pointed at rather bespoke conjectures, depending on one's specific denomination, was that the frontier mathematicians got too far ahead of the others to effectively drag them along (hence Tao's recent fundraising attempt using his one-off compressed-sensing work)

There is also the Experience<->Understanding "wave equation" if you will, codified by the popular engineers' joke about how mistakes/bugs mediate the two

Imho what academia+industry really need are GLM-wielding plumbers cheap but capable enough to find these abstraction leaks between silos. One taxes these plumbers so brutally that their clients can get by on basic tokens (morally speaking, so as not to drive demand in the farflung silos of billions bottles and babes)

There were interdisciplinarian buzzwords but these did not live outside the grant proposal, and probably won't survive better under the reign of Pangram

Instead of English, howbout L Exists ForAll N?

Anyways I have slept maybe almost quite enough, and identified that feeling of depth from your

"Problems(/strategies) humans found but overlooked"

As coming from AI and (unaugmented) humans making different tradeoffs (related to rational inattention..?)

On your side, did you lose all respect for Graeber and his recommenders, or did you gain newfound respect for your own ADHD. Lol