I tried to build a procedural 3d asset pipeline for a specific use case.
Before the Opus upgrade in November it was basically no way of doing this. I gave up very quickly.
After November i tried again, and no model could build me anything relevant.
Now it just works. Took me an hour to progress to a point were i'm happy.
Whatever they do, progress is still real, still way faster than I assumed
The list of Ubuntus 2404 LTS CVEs is HUGE. Another indicator that a lot of stuff got a lot better fast.
Feel free to be as dismissive as you want, but if you are not careful, you might be 'suddenly' surprised and you might not be prepared for the conclusion of AGI level agents.
Only if you interpret statements as being binary logic.
"seem to be" carries semantic meaning here: I'm stating my interpretation of the situation based on data we have available (which is limited) and my prior.
Put another way: "We can't say that for sure, but my money is on it not being a simple case of intellectual property theft"
Imagine if they broke it down to each distinct source, that'd be several billion cases of copyright infringement (though it's going to be determined by what courts think and that often comes down to "who can afford the best lawyers" in practice if not intent).
Apparently if I use lib-gen, that's copyright infringement and I'm exposed to legal risk but it seems fine to download all of it if your intent is "train an AI" so far.
We are giving you an opportunity to correct yourself. You are instead trying to make your nonsensical statement make sense. Not only does the first part of your sentence literally contradict the second part:
> We don't have enough accurate knowledge to say [one way or the other], and it doesn't seem to be the case at all [based on our incomplete knowledge].
But it is in no way equivalent to this:
> We can't say that for sure, but my money is on it not being a simple case of intellectual property theft
Based on: my experience working on AI for 32 years, including a decade at Google including working on large-scale model training systems that used user data and complied with various user policies around data retention, along with a few decades working in science/tech making decisions around ambiguous data.
In short, I have a well-tuned intuition and a huge set of priors, and applied them to the limited knowledge we have about this situation.
The human mathematicians didn't solve the Navier-Stokes problem, they solved the Euler problem. And they were extensively using LLMs to drive the work, as described in the Buckmaster statement.
Any way you cut it, this is a major achievement for AI, besotted with human drama over whose prompt should be recognized by the history books.
I don't think we should assume a millenium puzzle has been solved, yet. Astra showed impressive capacity for cheating when it was faced with impossible cybersecurity challenges. It seems equally plausible at this stage that it's found a bug in Lean.
Xerox is incidentally a really good example, because precisely nobody ended up using the desktop experience Xerox made. They ended up using the desktop experience that Microsoft and Apple made and shipped while Xerox the actual company faded and memory of those original parc research teams faded into obscurity.
Incentives are one thing, even adjusting for them it's huge, and I don't understand this incentive play for only openai, academics have perverse incentives too, to overreport, overclaim, publication bias etc why are we scrutinizing AI industry to such high degree when they have demonstrated capability and often times are off by a model release at worst.
I tried to build a procedural 3d asset pipeline for a specific use case.
Before the Opus upgrade in November it was basically no way of doing this. I gave up very quickly.
After November i tried again, and no model could build me anything relevant.
Now it just works. Took me an hour to progress to a point were i'm happy.
Whatever they do, progress is still real, still way faster than I assumed
The list of Ubuntus 2404 LTS CVEs is HUGE. Another indicator that a lot of stuff got a lot better fast.
Feel free to be as dismissive as you want, but if you are not careful, you might be 'suddenly' surprised and you might not be prepared for the conclusion of AGI level agents.
What would being prepared look like? A house in the woods with a store of food? Knowing how to pick door locks and set up a militia in the desert?
That's really interesting. Can you go deeper on how you achieved that? A loop comparing procedurally generated model with reference image?
How can you possible say this sort of thing in context of what looks like a millenium prize being solved.
I swear there's nobody blinder than those who won't see.
Because it seems like most of the work may have been done by human mathematicians and cribbed by OpenAI at the last minute
We don't have enough accurate knowledge to say that, and it doesn't seem to be the case at all.
> We don't have enough accurate knowledge to say that, and it doesn't seem to be the case at all.
The first part of your sentence literally contradicts the second part: "we don't have enough knowledge to know, but I know the opposite".
Only if you interpret statements as being binary logic.
"seem to be" carries semantic meaning here: I'm stating my interpretation of the situation based on data we have available (which is limited) and my prior.
Put another way: "We can't say that for sure, but my money is on it not being a simple case of intellectual property theft"
Yes, you were guessing. That's the only thing you could be doing, since, as you said, nobody actually knows.
> not being a simple case of intellectual property theft
No, it's an aggravated case, since it's the same way they got all of their training data in the first place.
Imagine if they broke it down to each distinct source, that'd be several billion cases of copyright infringement (though it's going to be determined by what courts think and that often comes down to "who can afford the best lawyers" in practice if not intent).
Apparently if I use lib-gen, that's copyright infringement and I'm exposed to legal risk but it seems fine to download all of it if your intent is "train an AI" so far.
We are giving you an opportunity to correct yourself. You are instead trying to make your nonsensical statement make sense. Not only does the first part of your sentence literally contradict the second part:
> We don't have enough accurate knowledge to say [one way or the other], and it doesn't seem to be the case at all [based on our incomplete knowledge].
But it is in no way equivalent to this:
> We can't say that for sure, but my money is on it not being a simple case of intellectual property theft
That is a different sentence.
An opportunity to correct myself? Respectfully, I decline. If you have trouble parsing my sentence, it's not meant for you.
> it doesn't seem to be the case
Based on what? Your crystal ball?
Based on: my experience working on AI for 32 years, including a decade at Google including working on large-scale model training systems that used user data and complied with various user policies around data retention, along with a few decades working in science/tech making decisions around ambiguous data.
In short, I have a well-tuned intuition and a huge set of priors, and applied them to the limited knowledge we have about this situation.
The human mathematicians didn't solve the Navier-Stokes problem, they solved the Euler problem. And they were extensively using LLMs to drive the work, as described in the Buckmaster statement.
Any way you cut it, this is a major achievement for AI, besotted with human drama over whose prompt should be recognized by the history books.
I don't think we should assume a millenium puzzle has been solved, yet. Astra showed impressive capacity for cheating when it was faced with impossible cybersecurity challenges. It seems equally plausible at this stage that it's found a bug in Lean.
You have to look at the incentives
I swear to god, people would look at the successes of Xerox palo alto and just shrug and say - "yeah, but I mean, this is all marketing"
Xerox is incidentally a really good example, because precisely nobody ended up using the desktop experience Xerox made. They ended up using the desktop experience that Microsoft and Apple made and shipped while Xerox the actual company faded and memory of those original parc research teams faded into obscurity.
This is what I keep saying, and it feels like I'm taking crazy pills here!
Is nobody else astounded by this?
Incentives are one thing, even adjusting for them it's huge, and I don't understand this incentive play for only openai, academics have perverse incentives too, to overreport, overclaim, publication bias etc why are we scrutinizing AI industry to such high degree when they have demonstrated capability and often times are off by a model release at worst.
A working Lean proof doesn't care what the incentives are.
People will cling to views as long as they possibly can, despite evidence slapping them in the face.
Eventually it won't matter. Arguments over whether LLMs are "truly" intelligent are going to be a matter of philosophy, and look a little silly.
It literally reminds me of climate denialism.
“Line go up! That is bad! Planet might become unsafe for human life.”
“Nuh uhh! Malankovich cycles and humans are a drop in the bucket! Krakatoa! See!”
“All of California is on fire!”
“Haha, stupid shrill liberals! Go rake your woke forests! Drill baby drill!”
“Are you kidding?! Look at this graph.”
“That’s just propaganda from the elites of the Build-a-bear group!”
“Do we even live in the same universe?”
“And 5g causes COVID!”
“Oh, I guess we’re don’t.”
How? By being knowledgeable, intelligent, and intellectually honest.
I. fucking. Wonder. Why.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607239
This comment was applicable 2 years ago. It isn't any longer.