silveraxe93

Assume someone solves P=NP

Do you think Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin deserve more credit than whoever solved it?

However, the declaration argues math is more than a machine for producing correct answers.

There might be more to maths than that, but that is definitely the most important part. I love science funding. But not because it's a jobs program for nerds.

This doesn't show it can write like him, just identify his writing. P!=NP

10,000!!!! is such a huge number I don't think we could even represent with a computer.

Being obviously pedantic here, I agree with what you meant.

Yeah, Claude Code.

While there's an extreme amount of hype around AI, it seems there's an equal amount of demand for signs that it's a bubble or it's slowing down.

2025 US defense budget is $849.8 billion[1].

Had a look and:

In total, OpenAI aims to invest approximately $1.4 trillion in computing infrastructure – encompassing Google Cloud, Nvidia chips, and data center expansions.

Huh yeah fair. That's more than the yearly defense budget. Absurd. Though I'm sure it's not _yearly_

- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...

I read this[1] some time ago. Seems relevant now.

- [1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-does-ozempic-cure-all-d...

So they are biased because they said it was a toss-up and the election ended up being won by a razor's edge?

Votes wise, the electoral college makes small differences in popular votes have a larger effect in state votes.

Need to use a personal account. Check the first question in the FAQ: https://antigravity.google/docs/faq

This is a leak, yeah.

Though come on... Even with proofreading, this is an easy one to miss.

Why not? You can just install windows on it.

Tattoos are self-mutilation the same way that taxes are theft. This is the worst argument in the world [1]

-[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...

No it's not. It's literally a court order mandating them to collect this data.

- [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/openai-offers-20...

Nice, thanks!

Did they!? Damn I missed it.

I was looking into creating one and skimmed the available ones and didn't see it.

EDIT:

Just looked again. In the docs they have this section: ``` Available Skills

Pre-built Agent Skills The following pre-built Agent Skills are available for immediate use:

    PowerPoint (pptx): Create presentations, edit slides, analyze presentation content
    Excel (xlsx): Create spreadsheets, analyze data, generate reports with charts
    Word (docx): Create documents, edit content, format text
    PDF (pdf): Generate formatted PDF documents and reports

Is there another list of available skills?

I'm surprised Anthropic didn't release skills with a `skill-creation` skill.

That's why I'm very excited by Gemini diffusion[1].

- [1] https://deepmind.google/models/gemini-diffusion/

Then don't? I don't think it's a valid complaint at _all_.

It's totally fine to just pick one tool (chatGPT, Claude, Gemini) and just use whatever the best default they allow you to use. You'll get 90% of the benefits and not have to think at all.

AI is new and developing at breakneck pace. You can't complain that you want to get bleeding edge without having to do research or change workflows. That's already unrealistic for "normal" fields. It's absurd to expect for AI.

The title - "AI is different" - and this line:

""" Yet the economic markets are reacting as if they were governed by stochastic parrots. Their pattern matching wants that previous technologies booms created more business opportunities, so investors are polarized to think the same will happen with AI. """

Are a direct argument against your point.

If people were completely unaware of the lump of labor fallacy, I'd understand you comment. It would be adding extra information into the conversation. But this is not it. The "lump of labor fallacy" is not a physical law. If someone is literally arguing that it doesn't apply in this case, you can't just parrot it back and leave. That's not a counter argument.

Lemme start by saying this is objectively amazing. But I just really wouldn't call it a breakthrough.

We had one breakthrough a couple of years ago with GPT-3, where we found that neural networks / transformers + scale does wonders. Everything else has been a smooth continuous improvement. Compare today's announcement to Genie-2[1] release less than 1 year ago.

The speed is insane, but not surprising if you put in context on how fast AI is advancing. Again, nothing _new_. Just absurdly fast continuous progress.

[1] https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/genie-2-a-large-scale-...

Is it actually unbelievable?

It's basically what every major AI lab head is saying from the start. It's the peanut gallery that keeps saying they are lying to get funding.

Arguments shouldn't be soldiers[1]. In fact, this I'd say this is harmful to privacy.

If you start caring more about how it supports your side rather than the truth, you're playing politics. And in that battlefield you'll lose to eurocrats.

- [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/w/arguments-as-soldiers

Everyone is commenting as if this is an attack on privacy. Read the article, I might have missed it, but I saw literally nothing on this. The main point is that police are profiling people using Pixel phones. Nothing about making it illegal, or trying to remove encryption.

Look, I literally have a Pixel phone running Mullvad. I care about privacy. But everyone here is reading the headline and arguing against a strawman.

This should be a discussion on how valid it is for police to profile people. Or maybe if it's actually true that drug dealers are using GrapheneOS. Europe _is_ attacking encryption and privacy. But this is not it.

If it's actually that easy, why don't you do it? Are you seriously just leaving $5 billion on the table?

I'll tell you why you won't. Because you wouldn't get it. Because it's not that easy.

Mira Murati is not some rando off the street. Ilya Sutskever is not some rando. Zuckerberg is not paying Millions to randos of the street to come work for meta.

Posted this because I was looking into how to use pre-commit with jujutsu and it came up. It's obviously not polished or anything, but was interesting and _seems_ to be the best we have for now.

I disagreed with a _lot_ of what they said. But I really hope the author doesn't suffer the indignity of reading this comment.

It's ironic how people write this without a shred of reasoning. This is just _wrong_. LLMs are not simply token prediction machines since GPT-3.

During pre-training, yeah they are. But there's a ton of RL being done on top after that.

If you want to argue that they can't reason, hey fair be my guest. But this argument keeps getting repeated as a central reason and it's just not true for years.

Do you know how it compares to marp? I've been using it last year and it's pretty nice. I hadn't heard about presenterm before.

- https://marp.app/

People found the original post so impressive they were saying that it had to be coming from cheating by looking at EXIF data. The point of this article was to show it doesn't. It got an unfair advantage in 1 (and say 0.5) out of 5. With the non-search rounds still doing great.

If you think this is unimpressive, that's subjective so you're entitled to believe that. I think that's awesome.