Well openai and anthropic are sitting on absolute treasure troves of private data that is their users' interaction with their models.

Most likely this is decompiled and not the way it was originally written.

Yep, and you can prompt something like "the function was a decompiled version, translate it into a readable version", if you don't like reading [probably] ghidra output.

That's not what happened. The claims of this for Navier-Stokes were already exagerated. It was dramatic but there was AI involved on both sides to make progress and the final proof did not use the same approach.

Finally, the list of hundreds of solved problems after that completely defeated any argument in that direction.

I don't think i disputed that LLMs were involved assuming that's how OpenAI would be able to snoop in the first place if the story is true.

Using LLMs doesn't mean some easy mode where humans don't do difficult work

That's a bit of a stretch of the term engineer

The claim is that competition is what's preventing them from unilateral disarmament.

> They also can't coordinate with each other, because that's illegal.

While I completely understand the claim I am addressing one part of it.

It's not illegitimate to model the solar system from the perspective of earth. It just makes the model more complicated than if you do it from the sun's perspective.

That's all true but there is a reason why these problems have remained unsolved for decades and are now all falling at the same time. The reason is not mathematicians being more incentivized.

Many of these are lean formalized. Arguably a much higher bar than whatever peer review provides in terms of verification.

On some consideration, surely. On the other hand, but at some point this is borderline like saying "universe already solved every physical problems, including possibility to represent deep important point of its own structure in compressed intelligent ways" and then tell that reaching it in an actual grabbable artifact is left as an exercise.

Possibly yes such a representation is possible. But it doesn’t mean it’s certain there is a "best compressed representation". And even less one that encompass everything important and that is understandable by any human brain, even the most exceptionally brilliant ones sponsored by a whole society to reach their best possible achievable performance on that goal through full dedication on that sole task.

Except it runs into an excess problem. As an example, Berlin - just one city - has 7 professional orchestras. They are supported by the government financially to the tune of 200 million EUR per year. There is a very real opportunity cost here and quite a bit of a wealth transfer to old people at the same time (since the audiences for classical music tend to be on the older side).

You could pump a large part of those resources into supporting other kinds of music and arguably the outcome would be more interesting.

It's a wealth transfer to the middle class. Poor people by and large don't go to the orchestra or opera.

Of course, some poor people do enjoy these kinds of things! But if you gave them a choice between the subsidised ticket or the embedded subsidy as cash in hand, I'm sure most poor people would take the cash.

> You could pump a large part of those resources into supporting other kinds of music and arguably the outcome would be more interesting.

Or give the money to poor people, or leave the money with tax payers, etc.

Maybe you shouldn't give much credence to your intuitions if you don't really know much about the subject. Obviously experts have those simple intuitions too except they also know the details of the theories underlying it all so they can form informed opinions.