You need to reread what was written. No one is proposing to take away your right to leak proprietary edge to the rapacious frontier labs that need to eat most of the economy in order to survive.
Why on earth would I be a Qatar sponsored bot??? I'm an anti-Zionist in the US tech industry. That's hardly a fringe position at this point, but it's still enough to get you blacklisted by genocidal venture capitalists if you use your real name.
That’s safe and non critical position to take, but that’s my opinion. I might be wrong, but the more I discuss this theme the more pro-Israel I become. And now you prove that you might be actually bot as you don’t even use real name to stand your position. And if you are not the bot don’t you think taking Israel related VC funding would be immoral from your position? That should be your priority to be blacklisted if that’s the case, otherwise you support what Israel is doing indirectly.
No, but the sheep are able to move on their own initiative instead of just in response to a prompt and can actually physically move objects. Don't count them out just yet.
> They are chaotic, which people confuse for non-deterministic.
That's an odd argument, because a lot of people who have struggled to decipher complex chaotic systems would tell you this is a distinction without much of a difference.
It's at least important from philosophical perspective regarding whether LLMs have free will or not. It's hard to say whether or not a human thought or action is driven by free will, people have debated it for centuries. We can provide the same input to an LLM and get the same output, because they are deterministic. Surely it is obvious that a pure function does not have free will, no matter how expensive it is to compute.
> I consider OpenAI to be as economically motivated as any other actor in this space and playing around with user data like that would destroy their business.
And that's exactly why you can only see evidence of this when the stakes are high enough, such as solving a Millenium problem. The legalese they outputted in response to the incident left them an escape hatch that permits the possibility of theft. People familiar with corporate damage control should recognize the verbal maneuvering, often used to paper over actual guilt.
There was also already a high prior of shadiness. The company is run by someone who is close enough in reputation to "known sociopath".
It's actually far more reasonable to assume that OpenAI stole user data to generate a breakthrough. They have an unbelievably high economic motive to do so. And even a low chance that they might be doing this implies catastrophic risk to anyone with valuable knowledge.
> Tristan's argument from his essay was that it is hard to brute force with a vanilla prompt (even for seasoned mathematicians) unless you knew very specifically what to mention i.e the search space would have been intractable even for OAI's compute budget.
This is a bad argument. This is clearly not how it works. And unless Tristan is some truly alien-like savant (and maybe he is), what's necessary to initiate the AI's work already exists in countless published research papers and not exclusively in his head or notes. AIs can survey the sum total of all prior work on a problem and discern reasonable paths for inquiry.
Tristan is acting as if he's working off of an outdated model of AI, similar to primitive chess-playing models that winnowed the search space much more deterministically. If someone this intelligent truly doesn't get that this is not at all what AI is anymore, then maybe there's no hope that we ever understand it.
But I think he does realize this and he's flailing about for counterarguments from a place of bitterness and dejection, accepting even those that are too weak to be defensible. And that is very human and even forgivable.
Are you saying there is no search space intractable to LLMs? That wouldn't be possible. AIs are statistical pattern-matchers on steroids. The prompt is key to getting anything useful out of them. They are incredibly useful and major game changers but ultimately that does not alter this fact. People (including OAI) have already tried to solve Millenium Problems with it. That OAI woke up last week and suddenly decided that throwing their researchers armed with millions of compute on one particular idea to a problem is highly suspicious in itself.
Even if OAI had zero data from Buckmaster's sessions, this is in very poor taste and highly unethical. You are front running a researcher just to be able to say you did it first? Tao is right - OAI is treating math results like oil. This is the like Exxon getting a whiff of a massive oil field and racing to the punch by deploying their full crew.
> Even if OAI had zero data from Buckmaster's sessions, this is in very poor taste and highly unethical. You are front running a researcher just to be able to say you did it first? Tao is right - OAI is treating math results like oil. This is the like Exxon getting a whiff of a massive oil field and racing to the punch by deploying their full crew.
I want to be clear that I agree with this view and with Tao more generally. But we're all just yelling at the wind now.
I'm not German and knew little of this subject, but I read the piece word for word and I can say with certainty you have not offered enough of a counterargument here.
I looked up the Potsdam meeting you mentioned and there were literally members of CDU (Merkel's party) present as well. It's utterly laughable to try and use that to then exclusively castigate a different political party for having had some of its members present. By your illogic, we would be forced to infer that the CDU is also "extremist".
So far, I'm left feeling like AfD has indeed been misrepresented by the liberal western media. And, I say this as someone who certainly does not agree with some of their positions. For example, being "skeptical" about climate change in 2026 is sheer idiocy.
But what is very clear to me is that Germany has a democracy problem. The system as described has not been truly democratic. It instead sounds approximately 'left-leaning authoritarian', right down to your insinuation that a political party should have been banned for its speech.
In case anyone in Germany is interested in rediscovering democracy, please note that THIS is what it looks like: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
There's a big difference between "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" and "I disapprove of your stated objective to expel german citizens who don't meet your ethnic/cultural standard of German-ness, but will defend to the death your right to govern." A century ago, Germans tolerated a völkisch-nationalist party that wanted to expel non-german ethnic groups as well. They did; they expelled millions of them to Poland and liquidated them there. The Verfassungschutz was implemented after WWII to prevent that element in society from taking power again.
I find the vociferousness with which clueless Americans have decided to defend the AfD bizarre. You don't know the political context, you clearly don't know the history, but you've decided that "Germany has a democracy problem." Why are you so entitled to an opinion?
> "I disapprove of your stated objective to expel german citizens who don't meet your ethnic/cultural standard of German-ness, but will defend to the death your right to govern."
I can't believe you're still insisting on this complete straw man. AfD's stated position on immigration is very easy to look up and it's NOT this. At all. You are parroting a leftwing lie.
They want to deport undocumented migrants and remigrate certain refugee groups, such as Ukrainians. You're free to disagree with that position, but lying about it and then descending into such an absurdly histrionic spiral over the matter does your argument absolutely no favors. That only supports what people like Caldwell are saying and, ironically, precisely bolsters AfD's argument about suppression of the discourse and an honest discussion of Germany's problems.
In fact, you've offered a perfect demonstration of what Caldwell covered in the first section of this very essay.
> you clearly don't know the history
Are you seriously trying to imply I'm not aware of the Holocaust?
Yet now you know their party stance by heart and come to their rescue? That is Sus, with a capital S.
>They want to deport undocumented migrants and remigrate certain refugee groups, such as Ukrainians.
This is not what they really want, is it now? They also want to deport Germans with attained citizenship. It's what they said out loud. There are records of this. Anything else is
> They also want to deport Germans with attained citizenship. It's what they said out loud. There are records of this.
It's what who said aloud? When and where? At the referenced Potsdam meeting where certain extremist CDU politicians did the same?
If I judged Democrats in the US by what their most extreme members have said, I would have to assume a vote for them would be a vote to end private property. But I don't assume that, because I'm not a moron.
So, show me a trusted source that argues a plurality of mainstream AfD politicians are claiming they want to deport German citizens. Show me where this is the official policy of the party. I see no good source to support that accusation.
And that's likely because it is in fact what it appears to be: a desperate smear campaign generated by extremists arrayed at the opposing political polarity. And it's also apparently failing since large percentages of the German population are moving the other way.
This is entirely reminiscent of the foolishness that sunk the Democrats in the US and put us in the mess we now find ourselves in. "Why moderate our policy stances when we can just call them bigots and Nazis instead?"
I expect the outcome of this strategy will be much the same in Germany.
They want to deport undocumented migrants and remigrate certain refugee groups, such as Ukrainians.
No. They want an ethnical homogeneous country, hence their remigration institute. Feel free to educate yourself on the institutes own website: https://www.remigration-institute.com/
By your own admission, (top of your first comment) you don't know what you're talking about. I never implied you aren't aware of the Holocaust. Thinking that the Holocaust is the only history to know here is indicative. You don't seem to understand the history of the BRD or how its constitution is structured, and you clearly don't know the internal history of the AfD, which started as a mixed center-right libertarian anti-EU party and has become more and more extreme over the past decade. You being angry doesn't make anything I've said wrong.
Every extremist thinks their ideas are moderate and so are the ideas of the rest of extremists they support. Elon Musk also thinks his agenda is truth. Trump created a social network named Truth Social
> “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
This has not led to positive outcomes currently in the US.
I agree with it in theory, I truly do. I think it also gets used as a tool for politicians, companies, and governments to say unhinged shit not based in fact to drive emotional reactions that actually hurts other people in various ways.
> This has not led to positive outcomes currently in the US.
I can't disagree. But, paraphrasing Churchill, (true) democracy is indeed 'the worst form of government except for all the others.'
And Americans will be given opportunities to remedy their mistakes. Both this year and especially in 2028.
We might find that MAGA having the freedom to speak their mind will turn enough of the electorate against them. Or we will continue to choose poorly and suffer the consequences.
But those consequences will have been arrived at honestly. And that matters.
> But those consequences will have been arrived at honestly
The problem with that is that Republican voters will not be the first, and certainly not the only, people to experience those consequences. Nor will they be the ones to suffer the majority, and especially not the worst, of them.
The electorate at large eventually learning their lesson is cold comfort to anyone that warned of this, and suffered regardless
> The electorate at large eventually learning their lesson is cold comfort to anyone that warned of this, and suffered regardless
The problem with this statement is that, in context, it clearly only prioritizes the interests and suffering of particular groups.
MAGA emerged because an altogether different group was completely disenfranchised by neoliberalism and ignored for a very long time. But it turns out they were still a major part of our country and they still had voting power.
So did the system actually break or did it work precisely as intended?
> there were numerous comments saying variations on this theme: "well, yes, but how about novel stuff, how about new things, original work, yadda yadda"
This completely misconstrues what professional mathematicians were claiming. The argument would be better phrased as: "having a vast accessible memory and the ability to very rapidly test/recombine previously-elucidated approaches means that AIs can and will easily outdo much of the mathematical community."
Now, one could plausibly make the argument that this is functionally equivalent to a certain form of creativity (I would). But, it may just as well also be a non-exhaustive form. And that is where the open question resides.
reply