Yes, everyone who has an AI boyfriend or girlfriend should make sure that they use only open source models that nobody can take away. Even if a particular cloud service stops hosting them at least you can make other arrangements. And the nice thing is those other arrangements should generally get cheaper over time, and that's nice, when your significant other gets cheaper over time.
In the modern world, it's just critically important that you exert full control over your SO. You wouldn't want them to run off and leak your most intimate secrets to others without your knowledge or control. I'm sure a lot of us could tell stories about our SOs that we didn't fully control and how they ended up leaking a lot of critical information about us. So full control is definitely mandatory in any SO relationship. It's really just prudent
it does change the scale of solution from "solved some navier stokes" to "put the cherry on top"
having a result means the math can keep moving forward, and having openai and anthropic train against how mathematicians use their models should let math continue to move faster, and the rest of us get to benefit.
I think these traces however should be public domain and publicly available, since they are basically university work
Good comparison. One is a multi-year claim by people who have been given ample opportunity to provide proof and completely refuse to do, even in courts of law. The other is a potential development in a breaking story.
Oh wait... its not a good comparrison, its an incredibly obvious false equivalence.
Note for the fools: I'm only commenting on the bad faith claim in the comment I'm replying to, not taking a stance on the validity of theft claims. Given the players involved the truth probably some nuanced middle-ground that is worth paying attention to anyway.
Trump claimed they stole the election immediately, and people agreed with him immediately. There's no false equivalence here. He did the same thing in this past election even despite winning.
It's a perfect example of people wanting to believe what they want to believe and ignoring evidence in order to do so.
Currently, there's no evidence. So saying it was stolen has no basis other than typical academic posturing and being a bad sport about "losing the race to the solution". Its happened 1000000 times before in academia and it will continue to happen.
If there's proof of OpenAI malfeasance than I'll happily curse them for it at that time. But until then I won't rely on heresay and vibes.
> We have AGI and the intelligence abundance is going to be amazing for everyone in the future.
Why? These 'geniuses in a datacenter' aren't good, they aren't 'aligned', they don't work for you. They'll take your job, then they'll hack your computer, and then who knows what's next.
I think it's the dishonesty, the threats of "destroying the career" of one of the mathematicians, and the request that one of the authors disavow *the other individual he was working with for the last 1-2 years* so he could claim the Clay prize as part of OpenAI.
It doesn't surprise me that OpenAI's team were surprised he'd turn it down; it shows that they just assume everyone else is as slimy as they are.
I can't put my finger on it, but there's something off about this article, e.g. glossing over the opportunism (acting on "rumors"), drive-by claim about "strict safeguards [...] including monitoring and isolation", high horse attitude (we gave the guy a chance, we don't care about 1M USD, and while you fools are complaining we just tick this box and continue the pursuit of our noble goals for the benefit of humanity). I don't like it.
I mean it's definitely an outrage, but I find it hard to believe that you went from "yay OpenAI" to "literally destroy the company" over... accusations of academic misconduct?
It could have been a member of the tribe that was disabled and had nothing but time. There's evidence to suggest that individuals like that weren't simply discarded.
There are a number of plausible explanations including just someone DID have the time and wasn't all that busy. That's even more likely but I wanted to call out the perspective that it might not have been the most typical situation that led to this.
That's not been my experience at all with Sol. I've provide it escape hatch tools to stop execution and I've found it's been TOO eager to stop a request user approval to move forward.
It might be sensitive to the prompt and tool definitions the harness provides, I can imagine it overusing the tool if being directly asked to resolve ambiguities. But in a straight Fable vs Sol comparison where I control the context and make sure I don't push the model, Fable consistently uses the ask user tool and Sol ignores it for me. Moreover, GPT has been known to do something like this since 4o if not earlier, it tries to ignore anything it perceives as orphaned context piece (e.g. XML sections with meaningful names but no explicit instructions on what to do with them). I suspect they specifically train it for that.
Its not everyone building crystal palaces in their mind, they're all building fortresses. And they can't be wrong in their fortress or it breaks their world view which they cannot accept.
Comments like this always make me lol. It's a pointless comment. Do something about it if you think the government doesn't represent you. Or shut the fuck up.
5.6 SOL is basically useless, even on fast mode. It takes so long to do anything that it would be faster to do yourself. And it burns usage so quickly it's genuinely not worth it.
Who thinks OpenAI or any big company for that matter give a crap about them? This isn't a popular sentiment at all, it's just patently false.