As a non-mathematician I'm confused by this Wikipedia article. Isn't it trivial to fabricate arbitrarily hard integrals by starting from a function with known values and differentiating it?
I understand that people enjoyed the prank, but I think the article doesn't make it clear enough that he was just trolling and wasn't actually solving hard mathematical problems
This is interesting but in my experience an avoidable issue if you force the LLM to write extensive E2E tests before writing any code. I also force mine to run performance benchmarks against any new commit before it’s committed.
I have backend bugs that I need to manage myself, usually from unknown-unknowns that I don’t think I can easily avoid, but I never have frontend bugs (since Opus 4.6 anyway).
And if you force the LLM to write extensive E2E tests and performance benchmarks before writing any Svelte code, you're even better off.
In the "Unix Haters Handbook", "X-Windows Disaster" chapter, "Ice Cube: The Lethal Weapon" section, I quoted Jamie Zawinski, whose timeless and tactile observation also applies to React:
> Using these toolkits is like trying to make a bookshelf out of mashed potatoes.
I would imagine these folks are being treated like gods at their companies. And having access to all the money/fame. It is not surprising they see themselves above all
I guess this is true in more ways than one. Kasparov famously accused IBM of cheating during the match, by spying on his preparation (edit: though the main cheating accusation was live human intervention during the games, on top of IBM downplaying the heavy human involvement behind the AI, which also mirrors this situation)
If you read his account of things, its very much that if they didnt cheat, they gave themselves every opportunity to cheat. But above all that there was a bunch of chess protocol they failed to observe in that match, like providing seats for Kasparovs team and rooms for them to prep in. Even if they didnt have a big room full of chess notables definitely not refining the output, he was personally getting pushed around on a few fronts which unnerved him. If they had given him a few rematches I think they could have confirmed the win, but they refused which is super sus.
Deep Blue beat Kasparov fair and square. Kasparov was a bit of a bad sport at the end of the match, though the reasons are understandable. He was at the top of the human chess world. He wasn't used to losing, and he took it badly.
I think it's because customers don't seem to mind enough to switch.
I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism, but it's getting harder and harder to justify on technical merits. Sol is just faster, cheaper, and more reliable, and as good as Opus for my use cases
> I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism
If you're really committed to the ideas of EA, shouldn't you dispassionately select whatever model works best for you, then make as much money as possible using that and donate it? :)
I've recently started using codex for most of my coding. Haven't looked back so far: It seems to reason deeper about the code it writes and has much less downtime.
> Notably, people in the latter group never assume THEY will be the ones suffering for the future.
What makes you think so? What evidence do you have?
> Yes, some people think effective altruism means helping people here and now as efficiently as possible.
Most effective altruists seem pretty relaxed about the 'here' part, but you are right that the 'now' part receives different answers from different subgroups.
> Others think the sheer number of potential sentients in the future justify any amount of suffering tolerated in the here and now.
There's also the people who care a lot about shrimp. They are less crazy than it seems at first.
Estimate of the number of people in that latter group? Nick Beckstead is probably the cleanest example of an extreme longtermist, but even he has taken the GWWC pledge. Similarly, Nick Bostrom argues in a pretty longtermist way and is neither vegan nor has taken the pledge, but I don’t see any particular evidence that he has a morality that an average person would call evil. Toby Ord and Will MacAskill are both visibly mundanely extra-super-ethical despite their longtermist views.
> I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism
They are doing the opposite while saying the other. Zero trust about that. They are using every malicious playbook tactic these days to increase users and be more profitable and lock-in the users. Even OpenAI feels better these days.
I mean, that’s exactly what “effective altruism” is about? Getting filthy rich and powerful no matter the methods and then the vague promise of doing something good?
Not really. They seems to chase IPO so that alone proves that they can’t hold any promise about doing something good. They would need to stay as private company to have any power to do some ”good” in the end.
The public book went to 0 and LPs lost everything. The 80% number is a result of blending the Anthropic stake (+620% YTD, 25% of NAV) and the public book (-100%, 75% of NAV) = +80% YTD
The post for the most part is mine, so if something AI generated slipped into it it's on me. I can share with you what I did to write the article which I do for most of my writing.
I start out with what I want to talk about, and then make an initial draft. In this case I also had Sol research all current APIs so I don't have blind spots. I tend to also talk with an AI to see if the structure structure of the post makes sense. I then wrote all sections by hand but used Sol to fix up typos, grammar and punctuation. I also had Sol apply notes and patches that were provided via Discord.
If I find the earlier drafts I can check if it did some more outrageous edits, but I kinda doubt it did. I do know that my workflow of having an LLM to fixes up later is increasingly breaking on SOTA models and I have complained about this before. Normally I now carefully apply fixes that it proposes, but in this case I didn't due to time constraints.
I am curious though why it claims that this is AI generated.
reply