As a vim user, I feel neovim was useful for one thing: it shaked regular vim development a bit. That said, I see no reason to switch. Good old vim is rock solid and featureful. I hope it doesn't die due to neovim's competition.
It's easier to evaluate certainly. Did it solve the problem? Yes/No
When you design a new thing it will have a dozen drawbacks and a dozen and one benefits. If people then have a bias that everything ai is bad, the signal won't be strong enough to convince.
I believe an LLM can solve pretty much any problem for which we can define a fast iterative loop and for which we have reliable tools to automatically verify the correctness of a result. That’s how they are able to solve some math problems, and how they are able to generate working code. Then it’s a question of how much you have to pay for the model to explore the space of solutions in a reasonable timeframe
In math a lot of the spectacular results have been made by finding a counterexample or worming their way toward a proof that is very well defined.
There's some debate over to what degree current generation AI can be creative at all, or whether it can only crawl around its latent space and explore within constraints. One might ask: were all the solutions to all the math problems AIs have solved already "there" latent in the training data and just hadn't been spotted by humans and put together?
But then... isn't everything latent in our training data if training data is "all observations made about the universe?"
But then... what even is creativity? That gets into philosophy and metaphysics. Creativity, like consciousness and sentience and self-awareness, is not a rigorously well defined concept. So to a degree we don't even know how to ask the question of whether these things are creative.
This gets interesting.
One of the things I love about AI is the glittering Pandora's box of philosophical questions it poses.
Another one I love: if LLMs and their relatives are not, in fact, sentient or self-aware or alive in any way whatsoever (which I suspect is true given how they work), then it means intelligence and consciousness are unrelated phenomena. I'm pretty sure every animal and maybe even every living things has consciousness in some form, but my pet bunny rabbits definitely can't write code. LLMs can write code, but I don't think they experience existence or have volition.
IMO we have always implicitly just assumed some kind of connection between intelligence and consciousness because we have both. It was just an assumption. It's probably a false one.
I suspect (a hypothesis) that consciousness is a property of life and is probably emergent from life's intimate relationship to thermodynamics and the arrow of time. Life has also evolved intelligence because it's useful to satisfy its implicit survival goal function, but the two are unrelated. Intelligence is just an adaptation.
Yea, when you start digging into intelligence/learning/creativity/language you realize that you're talking about more information on these topics than a human could ever learn in their lifetime, and you learn just how much we don't know about ourselves and these processes.
Whenever I hear "AI can never" I know I can disregard them as an unserious person when it comes to anything around AI, learning, or philosophy.
I think of the extent of human knowledge as a circle or cloud shape, and true expert thinking happens just inside the edge. And creative thinking that leads to knowledge breakthroughs happen when you are thinking in that edge area, but also make a connection way around the circle to some other location. And my guess is there’s absolutely no reason why AI can’t learn to do that too.
Interesting question. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty [1] states:
> A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.
It is clear, then, that the sample containers are still the property of the US, and that if the Chinese brought them back to Earth, they would be required to give them to the US.
They should do that anyways, plus their own, and then they can be like, “when America couldn’t afford it, we stepped in for them because were good people” and it would be strictly a PR win. As long as America didn’t just destroy the sample out of spite later, they could also act nicely and maybe we’re could all get along better.
I've been wondering about this for a while. Maybe it doesn't work? Or maybe frontier labs just prioritize benchmark scores in spite of all their safety talk.
> Providers probably serve quantized versions without disclosing it
It should be OpenRouter's responsibility to protect you against it, by regularly benchmarking providers and giving you the control to avoid bad providers.
In fact, that's a big opportunity for them, since it justifies their place as a middleman between users and inference providers.
100% agree. The key issue is that users think they are getting results from a specific model configuration and they are clearly not, which is fraudulent.
If OpenRouter wants to succeed as a business, they need to be auditing the providers they connect to (i.e. benchmarking) and removing fraudulent ones from their service.
It's good to quantify the extent to which a lot of the stuff on there is just vibe-hosted. But I think it was always pretty apparent that this was the case. You've got numerous providers all running the gamut of:
I think that light coming from different parts of the lamp arrives at different times. So if the lamp turns off, you see the part closest to you go black first.
One issue is that models are only one part of the equation. Search is also extremely important, and for that you pretty much have to depend on a third-party service.
This would be exactly that. The handicap stones in go allow it, it also works between humans of different strength levels.
Now, if you mean a NN specifically trained to play at disadvantage, that would be extremely interesting and I hope they make it!
