I think in the end, we should just be writing some prototyping language, then let AI translate into target/native development language of the said platform.
Code and optimization is going to be a niche moving forward
Use Bedrock or any kind of big tech hosted version of the frontier labs can be a solution. I think if secrecy is of utmost importance to you, then do not send data to first parties
Because it is not finished. Their follow up claim is that OpenAI’s approach looks like another proof they had been working on the side, but hasn’t published yet
OpenAI have admitted their new model they used was trained on prompts at around the time that researcher was working on it, so it seems self evident that it was used as part of the millennium solution
1) Because AI models are 1000x better about following a problem to its conclusion than coming up with a genuinely new idea.
2) Because if we accept the facts ChatGPT only came up with its "new" idea after being told exactly what the new idea was by a mathematician (OpenAI doesn't dispute this btw). And OpenAIs story comes down to the usual "We didn't look at it, trust me bro", which is made more hard to believe because OpenAI only started their efforts after receiving news of what the researcher was doing.
Oh and OpenAI emphasizes that part of the researcher's progress was made ... on OpenAI.
3) And, probably, the researchers were likely stopped by token limits, and that's the only reason they were slower than OpenAI themselves, which is very, very unfair.
4) OpenAI's story "smells" (like so many AI stories lately). Supposedly the company's team asked ChatGPT about solving millennium problems, and out of all millennium problems it just happens to pick the one where a solution can be found in its chat logs?
5) Yet again it would be in good taste for these AI companies to just give this to the researchers (no shortage of difficult unsolved math problems, so if AI can solve them all, just find another one). But instead, yet again they're fighting about it.
6) OpenAI admits they only went after this problem, with a team, no less, after finding out which researcher went after what problem, because of how they thought it would affect ChatGPT's PR. They are demonstrating, in other words, their willingness to destroy human researcher's reputation for PR wins.
That's getting close to big tobacco level morals right there.
7) If anyone wants to verify how much OpenAI cares about the truth, just ask on ChatGPT about the copyright lawsuit outcome and how it applies to OpenAI.
You'll get EXACTLY the sort of responses you get from Qwen about Tiananmen ("we didn't do it, you have no data, everyone's lying and if we did do it, it was perfectly reasonable because " style argument. Try it)
I don’t know much about NS problem or Euler problem anyway. Can’t tell how significant it is to go from Tristan approach to OpenAI’s results.
It is 10k agents after all with a model that is 2x-3x more powerful than Astra. So claims some intuition is his alone and the model can’t find it independently is Tristan’s belief not the reality, which I don’t find particularly convincing.
I do think that Levent guy isn’t independent and indeed does have an enormous amount of tokens to spend and also on an internal model from Anthropic.
All things considered, I think OpenAI people are competitive, even aggressive. But I don’t think they steal anything. Ultimately, the model’s capability is the real surprise factor here, the fact they could get a solution after all in 3 days, that is the cause of drama, if it is 3 months, then it is a nothing burger, because by then the original results had already been published.
> Ultimately, the model’s capability is the real surprise factor here, the fact they could get a solution after all in 3 days, that is the cause of drama ...
And there we go, a beside-the-point answer that tries to bring it back to the PR claim. And of course, an unsupported PR claim: if the initial insight really did come from a human, that would indicate the model's capability either isn't there or didn't matter.
And sorry to say, but competitive adversarial rewards for humans + access to the answer always ends in peeking. In kindergarten. In universities. In Engineering firms. In Finance. No difference other than the justification afterwards. Humans peek in competitive settings. They just do. The fix is not "trust me bro", the fix is making sure they have no ability to do it in the first place.
And OpenAI's answer to the "did you peek at the answer?" is trust me, bro ... as per usual.
If OpenAI indeed played fair, then this is a serious "dick move", and not at all how academia is supposed to work. AND if they played fair OpenAI effectively attacked one of their customers here.
If OpenAI didn't play fair then this is stealing from their customers. Which at a different level is their whole business model (get training data from customers, who even pay for that, train better model with that data, charge more, repeat).
Their base model must have been trained with hundreds of trillions of tokens several months ahead, at this point of time, it is impossible to rule out the possibility the model had seen that session at one point of time, and it probably did, without any OpenAI personnels actually know about it.
No BS, it is the MOST shocking tech story I have ever read. The amount craziness packed in 30 minutes is beyond my wildest imagination. Why no traction?
Depends what you mean by relevant. If you use AI primarily as a search/knowledge engine, it makes no sense. If it's your capable assistant that has a lot of general knowledge, can do tool calls, and has a big context window, very doable.
Indeed, for some kinds of applications involving secure/legal data etc. I can see the consistency of silicon winning out, because it combines performance with immutability and guardrails in hardware. Some chips have write-once PROMs to store password hashes and similar, you could do the same thing with prompt hashing to absolutely force or forbid certain behaviors. A model that can't be updated is also a model that can't be hacked.
Closer to every 5-6 years these days and with ram prices going up it will be even longer. Especially with the low/mid range phones, which are most phones outside some developed countries, people will keep their phones as long as they can.
Would depend on the income levels, but yeah, buying a new phone these days is entirely a non essential luxury. An iphone easily lasts 7 years so the moment money is tight, it's a very easy choice to not buy a new one.
I mean are there even any reasons to buy a new phone?
If I compare the Pixel 6 Pro I'm using at the moment to current models, they are functionally identical. The only reason to upgrade might be getting a fresh battery and access to firmware updates.
Otherwise I'd be happy to continue using it for the next 10 years.
I never said most people. But it's not uncommon. I personally find it ridiculous, and hold onto my phone until it's unusable, but plenty of people in middle class Australia seem convinced that they need the new one whenever it comes out.
