Maybe finally someone can take a look at the timing issues. This was a shitshow for a long time. Haha! At one point i think the tempo drifted between individual stems in an export?
Hopefully someone fixes the arpeggiator too. They made some implementation decisions that really messed it up for chiptune style stuff. (Retriggering the envelope on every arp step, not allowing for arbitrary chords(!))
and time and time again, in the original article, we are shown that when people are reporting to their doctor for withdrawal effects, they get a higher dose prescribed to cover it.
looks cool but i wouldve like a clearer delineation of what's data and what's eye candy.
i uploaded a 2mb log from a local repo and i guess it was the wrong choice. an early subfolder to root had like 9000 files in one commit. everything else kind of got drenched in the noise from that
You're tragically misinformed; it isn't. Several metrics are actually growing exponentially. But if you want emprical information, you can just have al look at the nature of the late AI incidents.
Ironically, many benchmarks being maxxed out, and quite quickly, so new ones have to be created.
You prove your own point no? You are asking for a benchmark to prove AGAINST ASI. Surely the burden of proof for such a scientific fiction concept should be the other way around.
It was not solved. ~OpenAI~ Buckmaster and Alpöge found one (or a few) singularities in the forced version of the Navier-Stokes equations. Then magically 2 weeks later OpenAI found them too. Again, I am not saying this is not a great feat. I am just saying that everyone should be a bit more careful when making statements about RSI.
As the sibling comment points out, that is incorrect: they solved a smaller, simpler problem, and OAI solved the actual Millennium Problem. But even if they had solved the actual problem and OAI stole it by digging through chats, that hardly supports the "AI has stalled" thesis; Claude played the major role in creating their blowup to a different problem.
How, exactly, does "it was Claude that solved Navier Stokes, not ChatGPT!" get you to "AI has hit a wall and stalled"? That's, not to put too fine a point on it, incoherent, and is just noise thrown into the discussion to avoid grappling with the fact that AI continues to rapidly improve.
Buckmaster and Alpöge has found a forced finite-time singularity for the 3D incompressible Euler equations (and two other types) building on the work by Diego Córdoba and Luis Martínez-Zoroa with the assistance of Anthropic and OpenAI models. Then OpenAI found a forced finite-time singularity for the Navier-Stokes equations.
TL;DR Buckmaster and Alpöge haven't solved Navier-Stokes blow up.
How information can get so distorted when it's trivial to fact check?
>You might just need something more concrete to hold your attention rather than fictitious characters in imaginary scenarios.
For me this is the opposite! Those imaginary scenarios are often designed with a certain pull in mind. Dramatic tension and all that. Reading non-fiction about fringe mushroom foraging is super interesting, but when i eventually put the book down for the day, that lingering pull isn't there... who knows when i'll get back to it.
I did read a lot as a kid, "between sunrises" too as you so beautifully put it, then dropped off. When wanting to start again, much later, it took me a while to find what kind of books elicited that response. As an adult, turns out to be... romance? I would not have bet any money on that, lol.
I do read pretty slowly now, as in, reading some paragraphs multiple times, going back to double check things, looking up some words maybe. Still, as long as i never put the book down i make decent progress in a day...
even before AI very few developers cared about the actual craft. I'd say only about 3%. For a lot of people it's just a job, no matter if it's a corperate dev or a startup dev.
One of my customers now added a policy that junior developers may use AI assistance, but are expected to write code by hand. Only proven developers can use AI to generate code, and are then expected to understand the generated code, and take ownership.
It's a different mindset. Has nothing to do with curiosity.
For me and you, "fixing" something means finding which assumption was violated and redesigning the solution in light of that. Sometimes this means adding code, sometimes it means making the solution smaller.
For a lot of people, "fixing" means adding code to make it work. This always makes the solution larger.
The latter group can still be curious! But they're curious about which addition makes it work, not about their incorrect beliefs.
What I saw in these cases, the result was a few levels removed from the root cause and they'd add the same workaround to like 5 different places (and miss one or two) instead of tracking it back to the origin where the fix was that simple.
Usually something more subtle like adding an early return somewhere before the offending line, or inheriting from that class and blanking that method, or something along those lines.
Hopefully someone fixes the arpeggiator too. They made some implementation decisions that really messed it up for chiptune style stuff. (Retriggering the envelope on every arp step, not allowing for arbitrary chords(!))
reply