CamperBob2

"No fair stealing what we stole fair and square"

Russia may be ready to attack the alliance within five years.

Russia can't even take the country next door. How exactly are they going to attack NATO? With a bunch of rusty nukes that almost certainly no longer work, and that would get their (relatively few) major population centers vaporized by nukes that almost certainly work just fine?

Parrot analogies for frontier AI are so stupid that they prove human-ness by dint of being a mistake no thinking entity would make.

So, you're saying that it was somebody on Reddit who disproved the conjecture, and not a "stochastic parrot?"

Also the HauHau abliteration (uncredited Heretic treatment) of 3.6 27B is excellent, for tasks that benefit from more world knowledge.

I consider it both interesting and important to stay informed on the capabilities and limitations of frontier AI models. I'm not a mathematician myself -- he might as well be speaking Martian for all I know -- but the opinion and experience of a leading authority in the math field is very relevant to staying abreast of the larger machine-intelligence field.

What's your parrot's take on the Jacobian Conjecture?

If you want the cheapest shit grade of steel, they will sell it to you. If you want the best grade available anywhere, they will sell that to you as well.

It's not a matter of the Chinese being incompetent, it's a matter of the buyer demanding the lowest price possible and/or not paying attention to what they receive.

I like how he goes one-on-one with it like Gandalf fighting Yoda on fifteen planes at once for 80% of the transcript, and then we read "OK, I've activated Pro."

IMO VibeThinker is the most interesting open model since the OG DeepSeek R1. The conventional wisdom has always been that specialization is not very helpful for LLMs, yet it outperforms models hundreds of times larger in its specialized area. It shows that there is a lot of fruit left to be picked, still out of reach but hanging low enough to be worth going back to the barn to fetch a ladder.

If I were a young Turk in this business, I'd drop everything else and figure out how VT3B is so ridiculously good at math.

Because failure to speak up when bad laws are proposed results in bad laws getting passed.

No one can figure out where you're coming from here. If the human solved a significant open problem without relying on AI, don't you think they'd have claimed the credit for themselves?

The suggestion that a human, working at Anthropic or elsewhere, did the hard work needed to disprove the Jacobian Conjecture yet chose to claim falsely that their AI did it, amounts to an extraordinary accusation that requires extraordinary proof.

Data isn’t free anymore and the right questions are becoming harder to ask.

Ridiculous. Access to knowledge has never been as widely and freely available as it is now (no thanks to the nanny-statists.)

As long as I can say, "Model A, look for security holes in this code by Model B," I don't see this being a serious problem.

It's when the vendors and/or governments in charge of Model A decide that I'm not allowed to do that, that I have a problem.

Then write your own training corpus.

What you're asking for is exactly the sort of thing that belongs in, and will appear in, a journal article. There will likely be a preprint on arxiv, so you might keep an eye out for that.

In any case, the fact that it was found by a commercial model means that the unfiltered reasoning trace isn't available even to the original author. So there are aspects of the problem-solving process we'll never see. Even if we did get access to the reasoning trace it wouldn't necessarily be definitive, given how these things work.

Hopefully it'll be possible to get the same solution from an open-weight model like one of the 3T heavyweights that are said to be coming up for release. If so, the chain of thought can be scrutinized in-depth.

It's simply none of my business whether or not someone does the homework to understand what kind of RAM they should buy. I bothered to inform myself; they can, too.

Yeah, this is definitely one of those "Smile, nod, back away slowly, reach for doorknob" threads.

Don't miss this one: https://superspl.at/scene/c67edb74

I only asked once, so it might well be inconsistent. I did try asking GLM 5.2 NVFP4 several times, and it returned consistent wrong answers at both thinking and max-thinking levels.

For Qwen 27B, I have better luck with a Heretic-derived 8-bit quant than I did when I was trying to run the various smaller GGUFs.

A related point is that when these things do gain object permanence and the ability to consolidate memories in a more human-like fashion, that's when the vendor lock-in effects will really show themselves.

Those memories will of course reside entirely on the vendor's servers, and there will naturally be no concept of "exporting" them or allowing the user to interact with them directly. At least not at first. Ownership of memories and context will likely end up as subjects of (far) future lawmaking. As if companies like OpenAI and Anthropic didn't already have massive incentives to establish early regulatory capture.

It's a semi-valid reply to deliberately-provocative phrasing on my part, I suppose. I'm over it, don't ban him. :)

I do wish that people who aren't interested in, engaged with, and informed about technical progress in AI would find someplace else to signal their disinterest, disengagement, and disregard. But that's admittedly a me problem and not an HN problem.

Of course you could win all kinds of math competitions with a concealed calculator. Maybe you'd need a fancy one, like a little SBC running Python.

My mistake.

Let's talk about category mistakes. You've been here since 2007, according to your other reply. You understand that calculators have as much to do with mathematics as telescopes have to do with cosmology. Right?

If someone unskilled at math brings a calculator to an international math competition, they will not succeed at solving many problems. Most likely, they will solve none at all. But if they bring a frontier LLM (and succeed at concealing it from the organizers), they can walk away with a gold medal. Such a feat requires intelligence... and if the contestant didn't provide the intelligence himself/herself, where'd it come from?

That means that analogies involving calculators are completely useless when the topic is AI. Calculators are not, and can never be, intelligent. LLMs are nothing even remotely like calculators.

What you're actually saying is that I shouldn't be allowed to determine what kind of RAM my application needs. Instead, you are saying that someone with a gun should dictate this choice to me.

That's what we mean when we say that people with your point of view are promoting nanny-statism. It amounts to infantilization of adult consumers and subsequent disempowerment.

Occasionally such legislation can be justified, as when genuinely hazardous products are involved, or products whose use involves wide-ranging externalities, but usually not. People can and should be educated -- and expected -- to make their own decisions about things like whether they need ECC RAM.

But when you call something "AI" and it tells you to walk instead of drive to the car wash

There are so many other sites. So many others. Why are you here?

We're choosing to call LLMs (and the little "harness" programs that query them in loops and execute their output) "AI", even though it doesn't make much sense.

They fucking solve original math problems that you can't solve. They are indisputably intelligent, and they are indisputably artificial. That makes them indisputably "artificial intelligence." Denying that (or downvoting it, for that matter) is up there with denying evolution and the Moon landings.

It's time to start flying a different flag. You're making humans look stupid.

It turned out to be possible with fairly basic statistical text generation, because fooling humans is easy.

Yes, fooling humans is easy. Yet somehow we still consider ourselves qualified to say what is "intelligent" and what isn't, even though we can't seem to define the term.

Wikipedia's editors won't be happy until the site has joined Stack Overflow in self-owned oblivion.

Interestingly, even Qwen 3.6 27B was able to verify the solution, but I didn't get any glazing for discovering it. Instead, it thought that someone named Shestakov had already found a counterexample in 2004.

GLM 5.2 whiffed, it insisted the counterexample wasn't valid.

VibeThinker 3B also recognized that the counterexample was valid. But it kept trying to convince itself that it wasn't, over and over, since it's an "unsolved problem." Eventually it just answered "-2."

Morons still say it, but then they would, wouldn't they?