> If such people were capable of being impressed by anything that happens in the empirical world, of updating on anything, they would’ve already been impressed and already updated several years ago, long before things had reached the point of an actual Mathocalypse.
I am honestly impressed by how many arguably highly intelligent humans are happy to throw out millennia of scientific methodology just because the world-burning probabilistic machine produced an output that tickles their dopamine brain.
Also glancing at the repo. Such an advanced machine, yet failing to output results with a common template. Every pdf is entirely different from the one before, making the work of the poor humans trying to find a sense in it even more difficult.
> Also glancing at the repo. Such an advanced machine, yet failing to output results with a common template. Every pdf is entirely different from the one before, making the work of the poor humans trying to find a sense in it even more difficult.
I don’t think it helps your argument if this is half of your post. The fact that the pdfs don’t follow a common template? That’s the complaint? Human papers also don’t follow a template.
But human papers follow templates...? (Both literal templates based on editorial and org guidelines and structural and presentation templates in the form of traditions of the research area.)
Plus, you know, you could use the AI to reformat it into any template you want. You could turn them all into anime music videos if you wanted. This is not a lack of capability, they didn't prompt it to use a template.
You sound like some useless bureaucrat. Oh noes, they didn't publish everything using the form XZC-152 template! And what scientific methodology? You want a scientific proof of when a threshold of where you can be impressed has been crossed? Ignoring the shifting goalposts, for me personally, AI is plenty impressive already by the mere fact that it can write a program that solves my problems from a natural language description. And "world-burning" how? Because water evaporates to create clouds? Using excess water treatment system capacity? Or maybe because they are using gas turbines to power it short-term instead of nuclear/renewables? That doesn't sound to me like an inherent flaw of the technology.
I just don't find particularly impressive that a probabilistic machine designed to write code, wrote code, based on the likely distillation of whatever input it got from math researchers blindly trusting OpenAI.
If the only way to power a "technology" would be to kill an elephant every time you use it, then it's a flawed technology even if it solved fundamental problems of humanity. This is currently how GenAI sprawling data centers operate AND without solving any fundamental problem of humanity.
Also I don't care about A specific template, I just find it ridiculous that some trillion dollar company cannot put a line like "please keep papers' structure consistent" in whatever markdown file controls these things. It's sloppy, like everything OpenAI does.
I guess the point of publishing breakthrough research is that by definition, it’s not just regurgitating human output, because there is no human output to these unsolved problems.
There was a bunch public literature on these topics. They were major unsolved problems. Lots of humans would want to have solved them and tried. But here’s it an llm that has solved them.
European Union has procedures for infringement or non-conformity in the reception of directives, but in practice, the fines are relatively small compared to a country budget (or how much money a country gains from taxes by not applying the directive) [1]
> I appreciate when white hats inform companies, governments, and the public about their successful exploits.
Except it took 3 months for OpenAI to notice they did! OpenAI is not a white hat doing pentesting, but someone that is putting random materials on fire to see if they smell. Reckless, stupid, and criminal.
So what? OpenAI may be a problem, but the security of a government website rests on the administrators of that government website. Not on attackers playing nice.
It smells of CCC (Command and Control Center). I would not be surprised if they are testing logistic managements of medium-large groups of people and re-use ideas to get a taste of the Palantir/Anduril/whatever defence contracts pie.
The complaint is totally understandable, BUT the examples do not make sense.
Arduino did not start as some dude selling less than 10 boards a year, but as an educational tool, which THEN ramped up to 100s of boards produced every day.
If your perspective is "I may sell 10 boards this year, maybe", your target is some local/national maker-faire, not a EU marketplace.
I think makers with such limited productions will just fly under the radar (if you sell so little, it's likely you probably won't need to incorporate or declare taxes in a lot of EU countries).
If they sell 100s of products across EU, they probably have at least one over-worked accountant taking care of existing compliance stuff.
It sounds like a pain for any small company, not just individual makers. There are many small manufacturers of boutique equipment that could be sold at dozens units per year, and this would add massive bureaucratic overhead.
I am honestly impressed by how many arguably highly intelligent humans are happy to throw out millennia of scientific methodology just because the world-burning probabilistic machine produced an output that tickles their dopamine brain.
Also glancing at the repo. Such an advanced machine, yet failing to output results with a common template. Every pdf is entirely different from the one before, making the work of the poor humans trying to find a sense in it even more difficult.