Well, my reading of this is Ofcom did not lose overall and 4chan technically lost the lawsuit despite Ofcom having no way to enforce fines. I don't think Ofcom's purpose was ever to collect the fines either. Now keep in mind, 4chan is the first website that had ever been issued a fine by Ofcom under the UK's Online Safety Act. I think that is interesting because it's a noteworthy site which suggests the selection of it was more targeted. Note that is my speculation.
4chan sued Ofcom over the fines. Ofcom has been perhaps waiting for the outcome of this suit and is announcing they can't collect fines but I don't think that was the purpose. They have the power to instruct ISPs to block domains and to me it seems more likely that is what they will do and that was perhaps what they wanted from the beginning.
I guess you don't know what actually happened. All but four of the 200 companies Ofcom asked for compliance, complied. The point is about any business that operates in the UK, and especially if it generates income from the UK, should be subject to certain laws in the UK. Not because they're accessible from the UK.
>4chan was already blocked by ISPs and you need to call them to unblock it on your connection.
Correct. UK ISPs already implement a fairly wide-ranging block list (which even includes archive.org) for any subscribers who do not explicitly opt-in to 'adult' content access privileges.
People have commented on this and said that the gist of the issue is mathematicians egos are bruised. That's true but I think it's defensible. Like we don't typically enjoy watching humans race against motorcycles in a 100m dash. But there's something interesting about watching humans do this in the Olympics when they race each other. Likewise, in math, people are solving problems considered hard by other humans and we acknowledged the art form.
But I think there's a practical side of it too. Finding what the limits of humans are is worthwhile too. Maybe the best analogy is like a group of people trying to find their way through a cave in the dark. One of them found a new passage and has a technique for doing it. So maybe we expanded what we thought humans were capable of. Could there be passages that humans can't get through? That might be useful to know. If we find proofs that humans just can't comprehend or have knowledge requirements that humans can't reasonably obtain that might be useful for us to know. A lot of math is not really applied to anything useful, it is just knowledge that is accumulated that other people thought was worthwhile perhaps because it was considered difficult for humans. So basically the journey to the proof is the value add and not the proof itself perhaps and AI might be erasing the journey. I have previously described it as a helicopter ride to the top of Everest but the point of climbing Everest is the difficult part. That's why people do it, the challenge.
I've seen it done in not even a small-town newspaper. A company I worked for put it into a print newspaper I cannot even find anywhere and I suspect the lawyers who we used to help in the process owned it themselves (but I can't prove this). I am not sure if there is a set definition of what a small-town newspaper is or "widely distributed". Like what if lawyers print it once a month/year and just distribute it around public parks or something? Is that widely distributed?
This isn't even a good basis. The question is what the purpose of visa to residence work programs achieves. No one ever questions the underlying assumptions. Like for example, could filling skilled roles actually cause a self fulfilling prophecy? If Americans assume immigrants will fill a role, they don't acquire the skill which actually creates a dependence on immigration to fill it.
That reminds me of the Richards Tip episode from Nathan for You, in which, in order to fulfill a legal requirement for a name change, they started printing a newspaper called The Diarrhea Times.
I would argue this is not accurate. The Elite Overproduction theory suggests you can have too many highly educated people and H-1B requires a bachelor's at least but incentivizes higher education. However, as it stands we already have an oversupply of highly educated people. The theory predicts that having an oversupply of highly educated people destabilizes society.
I would also argue that "global talent" in practice is just creating ethnic labor castes which I would also argue is a very destabilizing structure. So I would push back on your framing that more "global talent" is always good and actually I don't believe the premise that top talent must be imported.
I think you're making an assumption about what the military wants to do with AI. Based on things I have put together, they want an AI without guardrails for various reasons I won't go into. In fact, it's a security risk to have guardrails, given what I think at least one intended use is. I wouldn't jump to conclusions about corruption as the first explanation because this is vastly more complex than that.
I have this theory that the economics of AI development would make it so it's much more viable to make in-house, custom, apps rather than paying subscriptions for apps. I have even seen this play out on a personal level. A friend of mine who has no dev experience vibe-coded something custom that evite does. So it's possible measuring the number of apps miscounts ones that are not public or shared. I'm not negating anything you said, just adding something about metrics on apps.
At the 60 person smb (travel industry) I work we've taken web development in house for the first time, created new user experiences that sat on our roadmap for years, created custom AI solutions on top of our Fresh desk tooling, and (predictably) created a number of internal productivity tools.
The actual bottom line result is very fuzzy. Cost are shifting, by spending less on agencies but in return opening up new positions or shuffling people internally.
We don't see a clear increase in revenue, nor can we accurately tie retaining revenue to our AI initiatives.
Workplace satisfaction scores remain similar, with a few outliers (e.g. some people's work got incredibly exciting, while a few others are terrified by all the change).
Time will tell if this all leads to anything meaningful for the business.
i used to be in charge of these sorts of decisions for my team. the thing most people don't think about when it comes to rolling your own software is the upkeep. in other words, you don't _just_ pay for the software. you pay for someone to keep it running so you don't have to wake up at 2am to deal with angry customers.
Maybe one day but right now in order to get any meaningfully usable app with AIs you need to pay way more in AI sub than monthly sub of a bunch of apps. It doesn’t make sense right now to build especially your own if you’re not a company. Also it’s not clear how long we’ll have this heavily subsidized subscriptions.
This I can believe, also seen it on a personal level.
But I'm not sure about the long-term effects of this, we just shifted the "subscriptions for apps" to "subscription for an app" AND you must now maintain said apps.
Why? How do you define interesting research directions? That used to be defined by testing the limits of human understanding i.e. some people can't figure something out. AI might have very different ideas about what is interesting and I am not sure what humans would get out of putting years into understanding AI proofs for what? What are we doing at that point? Like if you spend years understanding some AI proof of theorem 123456, why is that meaningful? I am actually asking why you think defining interesting research directions will stay relevant. In my opinion, people spend years acquiring knowledge so they can work on problems which is separate.
There's two points about this I am assuming 1) Mathematics actually has a significant subjectivity to it and is community oriented and not just climbing a never ending list of theorems that exists in the universe 2) A lot of mathematical research work is inside of a subfield and isn't directly motivated by applications. Sometimes it is but e.g. people don't work on obscure theorems about elliptic curves because of a dire need for that but more because the community found it interesting.
But the work the Mochizuki case generated can also be done by AI. AI could generate a landmark proof and then people could use it to solve or simplify intermediate problems and you could use a different AI prompt to try to disprove it if you were really skeptical. From my memory I think they said it took 88 hours to solve a Millenium Problem versus the decades of time humans have put into it.
I don't like nuance here. I think progress is really measured by what humans are able to do and understand, not machines. It is significant if we find problems we struggle to solve. That tells us something. What does it take for humans to solve these problems is related.
The best analogy I can give is if you wanted to climb Mt. Everest you might ask someone for guidance. Would it be better to ask someone who has climbed Mt. Everest or someone who took a helicopter ride up near the top and then went to the peak? This is like the AI versus human gap to me. The helicopter is like using AI to generate a proof. The person who actually climbed Mt. Everest has firsthand knowledge of the experience. Same thing for a difficult proof. The struggle people have is actually valuable here. Likewise, we know people are actually capable of climbing Mt. Everest but if they had only ever rode a helicopter to the top, the knowledge of climbing it would not exist, and surely that is meaningful knowledge given the risks.
So if we rely on AI for proofs I think we lose a sense of what is difficult and why. We lose a sense of what human achievement is. Surely climbing Mt. Everest means more than taking a helicopter up? For students, why bother grinding through all the material of climbing Mt. Everest and then attempting it if the helicopter ride is how things are done now? This would have the affect of destroying knowledge.
(please do not nitpick the analogy because it's the best but perhaps a clumsy way to describe my thoughts)
> From my memory I think they said it took 88 hours to solve a Millenium Problem versus the decades of time humans have put into it.
Keep in mind those ~88 hours were spread across ~10,000 simultaneous agent instances.
So, roughly 880,000 hours of compute.
Assuming a fifty-year career, and forty-hour workweeks, a human mathematician's career is about 100,000 hours of "compute".
I suspect that with six good mathematicians spending their whole careers primarily focused on it, and working together closely, Navier-Stokes might well have fallen already.
The perverse incentives of academia mean this has never occurred.
The perverse incentives of industry mean OpenAI intentionally scooped researchers who were getting close (granted, with AI help).
I'm not trying to dismiss the achievement - if the proof turns out to be solid, it's quite impressive (though much less so if the training data included the recent human breakthrough, which seems pretty plausible).
I'm just pointing out that "88 hours" is a very misleading way of framing this.
> I suspect that with six good mathematicians spending their whole careers primarily focused on it, and working together closely, Navier-Stokes might well have fallen already.
> The perverse incentives of academia mean this has never occurred.
This. Mathematicians in their most energetic years are trying to get tenure or land a tenure-track job. They are disincentivized to go all-in on ultra high risk, high-reward problems. The potential downside is just too forbidding. It's much safer to develop a research program in a mainstream field that affords many opportunities for partial progress that can translate to a robust publication record.
"I suspect that with six good mathematicians spending their whole careers primarily focused on it, and working together closely, Navier-Stokes might well have fallen already"
There were more than six doing that and it's essentially why it was ripe for AI to finish it off. But the finishing off was quicker than anyone expected
I'm not a mathematician, nor do I know almost anything about the discipline, but it sounds like maybe you do.
What teams of people spent an entire career working together, focused entirely on Navier-Stokes or problems they suspected were related, without any "publish or perish" concerns?
I realize tenure is a thing, but my limited understanding is that a significant amount of time is spent earning it, once you account for Ph.D. program and the years of needed to be granted it.
ok I realize this is a tangent but you're saying my post is very misleading and then also saying that a human mathematician's career is about 100,000 hours of compute and that Navier-Stokes could've had a solution by now if not for perverse incentives. You may be right but I don't think this is a great argument because in a year I would bet that those numbers change since computing power tends to increase or get cheaper over time. So I am taking the stance AI can outdo people if not now, perhaps soon.
I wasn't trying to say that genAI won't beat humans. It arguably already has, much as that may fill me with horror and revulsion.
I'm just trying to point out that economically, we have not yet reached the point where AI mathematics research is a no-brainer hands-down win, no consideration required.
It might already be a win, and certainly the ability to compress those 900,000 hours of effort into an actual week of linear time is mind-boggling and potentially a huge game-changer for all kinds of open research questions.
It's not obvious that human math research is dead yet.
I agree entirely with what you're saying, right up until your final question:
> why bother grinding through all the material of climbing Mt. Everest and then attempting it if the helicopter ride is how things are done now?
I think you answered this yourself earlier:
> I think progress is really measured by what humans are able to do and understand
People want to make this progress. Therefore people will "grind Everest" as a mathematical community, and that is maybe not so hugely different from a lot of previous mathematical work.
There's still ample room for creativity: simplifying, generalizing, asking new questions humans are interested in, ...
> Does this mean that we wouldn't have mathematicians or physicists or computer scientists or biologists anymore?
In the case of mathematicians, I think not as researchers. What would a research mathematician do? I don't think there would be any reason to try to gain insight from proofs that AI made for the sake of understanding. I don't see what that would achieve besides just retaining extremely niche knowledge (which AI or the oracle already does). The whole point of having that knowledge was to build toward novel work which the AI/oracle does. Also, the time spent and difficulty understanding them could be very high but with no payoff besides just understanding them because the AI/oracle would be used to solve all the problems anyway.
I don't get this argument. We skip over fixing the birthrate and instead rely on immigration. There's a whole bunch of reasons people give for why we can't fix it like costs, jobs, housing, etc. Ok, so then first wouldn't immigrants also have the same problem once they get here or do they have a way of bypassing our low birthrate somehow but then we were told we can't bypass it, it exists because of the costs, jobs. etc.
So the immigrants end up with the same birth rate and then we have to bring in more immigrants. So there would have to be a constant source of excess people somewhere else for this to be sustainable. So it gets to a point where I wonder if this is really the plan.
You're assuming the birthrate can be "fixed". Japan has an even worse demographic problem. They've tried "fixing" it and nothing much works. Similar for South Korea. Japan would certainly benefit from opening up to more immigration. Countries that can attract more immigration are going to benefit economically as the birthrates continue to decline globally. Why not be attractive to immigrants instead of wanting to repel them?
It is very much possible to use government force to solve the birthrate problem. Romania did it in the 1960s. Mind you, this would cause a lot of misery and suffering but it has been done.
Make abortion and contraception illegal, and strongly enforce those laws.
It worked with Romania in the 1960s and 1970s. Mind you, it caused a bunch of other problems to crop up, but Romania did solve their low birth rate problem.
It worked: The birth rate exceeded the rate of deaths until Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown in 1989. There was some level of circumvention in the 1970s and 1980s, but birth rates continued to outpace death rates up until the day Ceausescu was overthrown and Decree 770 was made null and void. (If you have a different definition of “work” than “it increased fertility”, please let me know what that definition is)
Mind you, as I said before, there were a lot of undesirable, shall we say, side effects because of this decree, but it did solve the fertility problem.
{Snark tag: Obviously, I do not endorse doing something as Orwellian as having a government like the Romania of the 1960s and 1970s, and the unwanted kids caused a huge amount of intergenerational trauma. To get back to the issue of fertility collapse, fertility collapse is an issue which will last only one generation: The people who have kids will have worldviews which encourage having more children}
No, very clearly in the graph in that link it only bumped the rate of births for about 3 years before it very clearly returned to it's previous trajectory.
It did not change the overall trend because radical anti-abortion measures like that do not change people's desire to have kids.
As one can see, births were at or above pre-decree levels after Decree 770 was passed, and only went below pre-decree levels when the decree was dismantled in 1989. The 1970s downward slope is much less steep than the 1960s pre-decree downward slope. In the 1980s, there was no downward slope whatsoever. Fertility stayed at roughly pre-decree levels before plummeting once the decree was ended. At no point while Decree 770 was in effect did we have a birthrate that “very clearly returned to it's [sic] previous trajectory”.
Now, let’s go back to what I was replying to when I brought up Decree 770. “Our birthrate has been below replacement” said one poster, and in a reply “You're assuming the birthrate can be "fixed"”. Decree 770 fixed the issue I was replying to: Birthrate being below replacement. Pre-decree, Romania’s birthrate was on a downward path, and would had been below death rates by the early 1970s. Because of the decree, the birth rate stayed above replacement rates until it was repealed in 1989.
Decree 770 increased fertility. It kept fertility above death rates. I have already posted elsewhere why Decree 770 was a very bad idea.
This will be my final reply to @mrguyorama. They do not come off as someone willing to admit when they are wrong about something.
I mention fertility rates remained constant in the 1980s. Now I know why fertility rates didn’t go down back in that era.
In the year 1984, Romania took a page from Orwell’s 1984: All medical units were put under surveillance to minimize the number of illegal abortions. There was now a secret “Thought Police” in 1984 monitoring all doctors and nurses to make sure no abortions slipped through the cracks. The number of abortion related convictions in 1986 doubled compared to 1985. Just like 1984, not only did a hidden thought police find these people doing illegal abortions, but people would report on their neighbors.
Romania was able to stop the 1970s fertility decline (which, again, was a good deal less steep than the fertility decline when abortions were legal) in the 1980s by going full Orwell and clamping down the screws.
It’s probably a bad prediction of the future, but having an exaggerated dystopian view of the future is a classic trick used in golden age science fiction (e.g. Decision at Doona from 1969 had a grossly overpopulated Earth) so one I was able to accept while reading the story.
It definitely has a bias; it doesn’t mention the stories of women regretting abortions at all, except (minor spoiler) mentioning that Asenath Smith didn’t want an abortion. As someone who has had multiple women confide their abortion stories to me, it’s quite common for women to deeply regret having them. I understand why a story as political as this one doesn’t want to get in to the nuance of the trauma abortion can cause, because it’s written in the same year Roe vs. Wade was overturn, so it’s a story of how much women need access to pregnancy tests and to abortion. [1]
[1] I personally believe in the right to an abortion, for the simple reason that, when a woman has a miscarriage or a baby which just isn’t viable, the medical treatment she gets should be a decision doctors make, not a decision people with guns and cages make.
The “proposed solutions” are very misogynistic. They include repealing the 19th amendment (not letting women vote), repealing sex discrimination laws, and enforcing “patriarchy”. See, for example https://archive.ph/20260624060135/https://nitter.net/Schtal2... for the kind of nonsense these kinds of people are proposing, based on lies and fabrications.
I know what some X users say about that, and I know that some people here have these same ideas. I was just wondering if that is the supposed solution that the person suggested
You’ll have to ask @account42, but I will bet you it’s the same answer I came up with: Take away people’s freedoms and have a hard, strongly enforced (i.e. Orwellian levels of enforcement) ban on contraception and abortions.
Both @account42 and myself agree this isn’t a particularly good solution, and I’m not worried about the fertility collapse myself: It is an issue which will last for only one generation.
I'm not sure if they agree with you that is not a good solution, though. I don't even consider it a solution the same way that I don't consider slavery a solution for lack of workers.
Here is what they said: “You can definitely fix it. You might not like what it takes but others don't like their culture being replaced either.”
I think he’s implying he has some pretty, shall we say, interesting views on the matter. As someone who has been in an interracial marriage and multiple interracial relationships, I probably don’t agree with those particular views.
It would be nice to know what he’s advocating for, but he’s gotten pretty mum after I pointed out it could be done, but only with Orwellian levels of suppression.
Teenage pregnancy, limited rights for unmarried women, heavily surveilled birth-control usage, all that good stuff. So long as the culture is preserved! There are 14 words that basically sum it all up
Yes, the only way to preserve USAs culture of freedom of the individual is to dissuade/force women from making choices that dont benefit the group. Else we will fall to communism!!
4chan sued Ofcom over the fines. Ofcom has been perhaps waiting for the outcome of this suit and is announcing they can't collect fines but I don't think that was the purpose. They have the power to instruct ISPs to block domains and to me it seems more likely that is what they will do and that was perhaps what they wanted from the beginning.
reply