HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | hyperionultra's commentslogin

What is practical application of Francis work?


It could be the beginning of Neutrino astronomy [1]. So far, we only used the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays, to observe the universe. If we could equally leverage neutrinos or gravitational waves, we could observe much more of the universe. For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation enables us to deduce the conditions at 300ky after the Big Bang. The cosmic neutrino background [2] could give us insight in the conditions 1s after the Big Bang.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background


The million dollars. A Nobel prize is worth a million dollars.


Similar to the Millennium prize by the Clay institute, the amount of luck and effort you need to receive the prize don't make it worthwhile. Plus, it's generally expected to use that money for further research. It would be advisable to focus on other endeavors, if money is your motivator.


So, two years salary in the Bay Area where it's a lot warmer?


Neutrino detectors are essential in receiving communication from other galaxies.


That doesn't make any sense. Photons would work much better.


Photons work better for driving a car too but being able to hear is still quite useful.

In other words: we already have lots of things that measure photons. You see things on two totally different media it's a lot more compelling than just one.


That may be the case, but it doesn't explain why neutrinos would be essential for intergalactic communication. Maybe the person I was responding to didn't realize neutrinos travel very close to the speed of light, not infinitely fast?


Neutrinos might be a better medium for intergalactic communication, since they can travel through most objects.

Or we can all just think big thoughts at the same time... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calling_Occupants_of_Interplan...


There isn't anything in the way that would require this. I mean, we can see back to (shortly after) the Big Bang.


Kind of contrived, but if you're sending a signal from some other planet to our planet, depending on the geometry, there will be times of the year that our local star is in the way of photons.

Also, if you're sending out photons from a planet, chances are there's a local star nearby. Stars tend to be a broad-spectrum photon source, which is going to make it tough for receivers to decode the intentional signal.


Which is more difficult:

(1) Putting a telescope in space

(2) Focusing and detecting very high energy neutrinos

This is especially the case when photons will have, what, 15 orders of magnitude less energy than the neutrinos?


> Which is more difficult:

This is why I always search for my keys under the streetlamp, even though I dropped them in the unlit field nearby.

That said, putting a telescope in space is easy; we've done it several times...

But, can we filter photons intentionally sent from some far off solar system out of the stream of photons coming from their local star?


Yes. It's been proposed for SETI inside our galaxy too, and could be done with current technology (at least, receiving).

It would be VASTLY easier than using neutrinos.


Neutrinos are not an analog to sound in the point you are trying to make. They are many orders of magnitude more weakly interacting and much, much difficult to measure.


Knowing the properties of neutrinos is essential for building the neutrino bomb, the most ethical weapon possible.


Can Lecun’s perception of LLM danger be influenced by monetary benefits?


He does have hundreds of millions in Meta stock.


The limitation actually is: your fantasy and knowledge how the thing you want actually should work.


Game of whack-a-mole: people looking for ways to detect nerf, while companies adapt in hiding nerfing.

At scale where anthro and cgpt operates - every single token matters.


To be fair, if a nerf cannot be detected, does it really happen? A nerf that doesn't worsen things isn't a nerf. That's just an optimization.


Well, since llms need matterial for self-education, someone still had to be inteligent enough. Or llms will freeze their “intelect” at some point.


No, they can just solve tasks verifiably. Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards. Pure next-token supervision is only in the pre-training phase for modern LLM agents. They can also define new RL environments and pose new challenges to themselves and train themselves to solve them faster. Yes, at some point some human steering and judgment comes in as to what sorts of tasks to train towards. But there is no obvious taper-off at human level.


Surprisingly, this isn't necessarily true.

To take an intuition: there are lots of problems that are easier to pose and to check than they are to solve, in mathematics.


> Well, since llms need matterial for self-education, someone still had to be inteligent enough.

Not necessarily. https://arxiv.org/html/2609.26457v1


Well, someone. But not necessarily anyone else.


This is the key.

In the age of AI, human super-intelligence, is extremely valuable. But yeah, just being intelligent? Not so much.

Just to illustrate, many have complained that big AI labs "buy" startups only because they want to acqui-hire the Stanford/CalTech/MIT PhDs who started it. Then they pretty much $#!t-can the rest of the people who were, to be fair, mostly just run of the mill UTexas/Umichigan/UofwhateverState TF/PyTorch monkeys. But the point is that in the old days, the second tier guys would have made out like bandits as well.

I think that was, kind of, the start of human intelligence becoming a winner take all game. The AI's only need to learn the latest and greatest from one person before they can leverage that value everywhere. And business is not likely to care too much about who that person is. They will care even less about the people who are not that person.


Why would it freeze if they can create more training material. Its already been shown synthetic training data is just as good if not better.


> Its already been shown synthetic training data is just as good if not better.

Source, please! I'm a machine learning layperson but how can this not be overfitting?


https://arxiv.org/html/2609.26457v1

> AIDE demonstrates that recursive self-improvement at the harness layer can produce transferable gains in an AI research agent’s research efficiency. During the recursive self-improvement run, the loop accepted seven rewrites, each under a fixed evaluation budget (section 3.2). Under this fixed evaluation budget, gains in optimization capability on AI R&D tasks translate to gains in research efficiency."

https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11873

> The Last AI Built by Humans: Toward Genuine Recursive Self-Improvement


For example, an LLM can prove a new theorem in math, verify it in Lean (so it is definitely true), and then prove more things based on that.

AI-generated data might not always be that useful, but at least in this case it obviously is.


Uf, how much tokens?


At least 150k on my relatively small FastAPI project, but hit my session limit. Continuing in a few hours.


Oof. YAGNI. 150k tokens is where you start hitting the "dumb zone" (model attention issues and inconsistent adherence to instructions).


After the downfall - it will be prosecutable. Of course before that we (simpletons) will have to pay for those companies to avoid “economic collapse”.


Door 3: turn off API.


Nitter doesn't use the Application Programming Interface. It uses Adversarial Platform Interoperability, instead.


At the scale of EVE - no.


Lately Dario has to many bad news from customer side. Of course there is no bad or good news, just marketing, but still…


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: