He described himself a "violently anti-communist", and he saw nuclear war as an eventual necessity in a civilisational conflict between democracy and totalitarianism. If you view a nuclear war as unavoidable, it's easy to conclude that it's better to get it over with sooner rather than later, since a later war will be even more destructive. Especially since von Neumann was active in the 1940s and 50s, when the west had a slight edge in weapons technology, and before the development of the giant H-bombs. He and a few other pro-nuclear scientists argued there was a brief window where the USA could fight and win a nuclear war against the USSR, and they should take it.
While it's easy to dismiss that view in hindsight, it's worth considering that von Neumann had personally witnessed the rise of the Nazis and had to flee along with many of his friends and family. And he had seen that regime defeated only by military strength of the USA. And while the USSR and USA never did end up in a nuclear war, it really was only by a series of miracles that it was avoided. I think most historians of the 20th century would agree we got very, very lucky.
Von Neumann family was affected also by the communist "red terror" in Hungary in 1919, and by the subsequent "white terror" of the militant anti-communist authoritarian government after 1919.
What Ed-Tech companies? This article isn't talking about Ed-Tech companies. Axel Rauschmayer isn't an Ed-Tech company. He's an individual author who wrote books about JavaScript, the language. He wasn't pushing these "unnecessary solutions", he was helping developers understand JavaScript, exactly the thing you say is necessary. Josh W. Comeau isn't an Ed-Tech company, he's an individual who writes content about new CSS features like Anchor Positioning[1]. What do educators like this have to do with 1+ GB RAM frontends?
Ironically this article itself is a model of "life in 2026" based on examples cherry-picked to support the author's viewpoint. I wonder if he as open to being proved wrong about this exact thesis as he encourages his audience to be?
There was a level of patent/copyright protection, there was a level of awareness of stealing, a company could be taken to a court of law. A writer of a PhD thesis could show that someone lifted huge parts of a dissertation without attribution. All that is gone.
They could, but I could always hope they wouldn't, and most of the time I wouldn't be disappointed. AI companies don't even have means to attribute to someone the solution they're selling.
I don't think it was ever ignored that knowledge workers would be the first affected by AI. I remember hearing for a long time that lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. would all be obsoleted by AI.
I do think many (including me) were surprised that software engineering would be the first kind of knowledge work to be successfully automated. We assumed it would be one of the last, because we'd be the industry using AI to replace everyone else, not the industry using AI to replace ourselves.
This is completely standard journalistic practice when reporting a quote on something that is currently contentious or unproven. For example, consider the two hypothetical headlines:
Activists decry police murder of protester
Activists decry police "murder" of protester
The first implies that the police murdering the protestor is an established fact. The second makes it clear that it is the activists who used the term "murder" rather than it being a non-contentious fact.
Both versions are fancifully direct in our era a media+police stenography, try:
Mayor denounces "radical activists" rioting and damaging city property in response to an officer-involved incident that resulted in one fatal kinetic altercation with a "loud and provocatively dressed" man.
Read McSweeney's guide to ambiguous grammar, where they lead you step by step from the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog to the ultimate say-nothing sentence speed was involved in a jumping-related incident while a fox was brown, and the punchline is you can then translate "the St Louis County Police Department was involved in an officer-involved shooting after officers came under heavy gunfire" to "a police officer shot a black person" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Michael_Brown)
But no, that's the language issued by police departments covering their asses. Journalists are a little bit covering their asses in making clear what is a quote and what isn't, but they're still responsible for what they choose to quote, and to be clear on whether they have verified the claims they're quoting.
Ideally, unverified claims shouldn't even be in an article. But when there _has_ been some kind of stramash, they just don't know who did what, the need to rush out an article to get clicks means they'll just quote both sides and try to give them equal prominence until they can do more verification.
oh like this article that says a child was hit by a "LAPD bullet" as though wild bullets roam the streets of LA looking for children instead of being fired from a gun by a person who made a decision.
It doesn't help when snippets are post leaving out the other context clues where things like "according to" or "anonymous source stated" or similar attribute of the quote. Just putting words between quotation marks does not lead me to believe they were quotes if there is no attribution. Otherwise, it's a Trump level "people tell me" type of "quote".
Prompting them yes, suggesting potentially fruitful research directions and so on, but the actual research was conducted by hundreds of agents swapping millions of messages and using billions of output tokens over 88 hours. The result being a huge Lean proof: https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler. It's not just possible for humans to manually guide such a process in a meaningful way. They can set the direction and attempt to understand the result, but they solution itself must emerge (or not) from the agent swarm.
So yes, the models do seem to be "solving" the problems themselves, but not necessarily in the way we think of mathematical discoveries happening. Academic mathematics has historically been resource constrained: There are a limited number of top-level mathematicians, and they only have so much time and brain power to spend. So when approaching a problem, they are essentially forced to be as efficient as possible, not just searching for a solution, but for one that can be achieved within their cognitive budget. This induces them to develop novel techniques and abstractions, and it is actually those techniques and abstractions that tend to be the valuable part for further research, not the proof itself.
An agentic swarm is like getting a single skilled mathematician, cloning them a hundred times, then locking them in a room with the single objective of solving a problem. No longer constrained by time or brain power, they can approach it differently, using pre-existing techniques to gradually build their way to a solution. This process might not require a single intuitive leap or new discovery, and the solution will not be simple or elegant, but they will probably get there. It is more like a process of intelligently guided search than invention.
The OpenAI team didn't make a Lean proof. They brute forced a counter example. The "other" team was doing what you described but they haven't "finished" their work yet. Also, their Lean proof was for a simpler version of the problem, not the full NS.
Also, OpenAI wanted the actual mathematician taken off the resulting paper. I'm not sure I would describe what OpenAI did as research. What the other team was doing does seem to be more like research but the hardware was still in those cases mostly brute forcing things and then doing something like a genetic algorithm to compose an actual proof based upon the results of a large set of brute force attempts.
Didn't OpenAI make a Lean proof?
https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler/tree/main/Nav...
"This repository contains Lean 4 formalizations of the results presented in “Finite time blowup for Navier–Stokes” and “Finite time blowup for the Euler equation” by OpenAI."
The current UK government was also elected by democratic vote, so they have a mandate that postdates the referendum.
You can argue their mandate is invalid due to the first-past-the-post system, but in that case the original decision to hold a referendum, and all subsequent governments that negotiated the terms of the EU exit are also invalid, since they all derived from first-past-the-post elections.
The current UK government have a mandate with regards to running the UK more generally, but leaving the EU was its own very clear message. There was a vote in 1975 to continue EU membership, and again in 2016 [1]. It very much feels likely something that should only be undone on another vote.
I cannot fathom how people enjoy that book. I appreciate the writing (and love other CM books) but Blood Meridian felt like a gratuitous ordeal to me. I tried watching lit professors lecture about it too but I still just don’t get it.
While it's easy to dismiss that view in hindsight, it's worth considering that von Neumann had personally witnessed the rise of the Nazis and had to flee along with many of his friends and family. And he had seen that regime defeated only by military strength of the USA. And while the USSR and USA never did end up in a nuclear war, it really was only by a series of miracles that it was avoided. I think most historians of the 20th century would agree we got very, very lucky.
reply