Humans built the tool which enabled the result. AI used the tooling for eliminating the dead ends. Yes, I can appreciate the practical value of all this, but IMHO it is not a kind of breakthrough result the article gives impression of.
"you could never have accomplished"; I am not able to follow the logic here - there is no "magic" in LLMs, they're built by humans and we know what they do.
Sure? I mean the internet is just a bunch of wires and some networking code not magic but at the same completely life alteringly magical.
My logic is that you personally could never have accomplished this feat with all the non LLM tools and content in the world. These kinds of things imply these methods are stepping beyond human ability.
Sure we put walls around it and optimize but the interior of that optimization is not something we understand.
You now have access to a system that for a price could solve something you simply are unable to solve. Not something we programmed it to solve, something that has never been solved before.
Nobody gave it an example of this proof, that's magical.
I think you're referring to the fact that the sheer amount of computations is something too time consuming for us to follow? But still it is not "magical" - in theory we could follow all the steps, there's no hidden information.
No, I mean we just don't know what's going on in the circuits of the model at any substantial level. We set their architecture (hyperparameters), we pump them full of data (pretraining), and we shape how they behave through examples (SFT) and reward (RL), but we can't say with any certainty what the resulting model does internally.
Yes "at any substancial level" . But still, its all about deterministic processes and still it obeys the law that the same input gives the same output. Or do you mean that the fluctuations like computing environment might ruin the determinism?
Learning isn't boring. Homework is incredibly boring.
They aren't assigned based on each student's understanding and mastery of the subject. They're assigned based on the lowest common denominator. It's an incredibly discouraging hoop to jump through for students who actively find joy in learning and discovering new things.
How are you defining technology? How are you defining human problems? Inventions are created to solve human problems, not theoretical problems of fictional universe. Do X-rays, refrigerators, phones and even looms solve problems for nonhumans?
Claiming something that sounds deep doesn’t make it an axiom.
Sure, where is your productive output? Cause that's drivel.
Anthropic kept referring to Hegseth as "Secretary of War" and the DoD as "Department of War". Which is horseshit. This whole thing is Anthropic flailing.
Even as someone pretty staunchly opposed to this stupid "Gulf of America" Jahr Null bullshit from the Trump administration, I actually think the new labels are more honest about these institutions and their intended purpose.
I understand the ultimate end goal to be simulation of life. A near perfect replica of the real world we can use to simulate and test medicine, economy, and social impact.
Perhaps it may help to work on your social skills with more intent. People who often find themselves disrespected at work aren't always bad performers but they do tend to have large social blind spots they themselves aren't aware of.
Why do you jump to the conclusion of parent being the problem? Your comment implicitly accepts that people's social skills can be problematic, but you assume it isn't the manager?
I actually do not really mean what I wrote. I disliked what the commenter had to say about other people's social skills in a different thread and wanted to get one in. Not my most mature moment.
So technically you do mean what you said? Just aimed at the parent in particular, not as some general rule.
Anyway, maturity is overrated, and sometimes A holes need to be called A holes, I haven't read the comment at issue so whether the parent deserved it is left as an exercise for the reader.
Or maybe, quite a few managers need to work on their social skills. It is genuinely weird that the expectation of emotional and social management always falls on engineer in these debates. Maybe, just maybe, a manager with supposedly higher social skills should be able to manage relationships with engineers better.
We find that people having to perform mental arithmetics as opposed to people using calculators exhibited more neural activities. They were also able to recall the specific numbers in the equations more.
Yes, a time when children entertained themselves outside interacting with other children, and adults were so peripheral to their lives that they could be portrayed always off screen by a mumbling voice.
Yeah. I remember thinking it was old and boring as a kid in the 90's... Have children born after the millennium even ever seen a newspaper, let alone read the comics?
This is genius! The tailscale vpn was stupid easy to setup (I'm a near novice and figured it out). An email interface with progress updates would be even better than doom coding.
