I simply must know now: Could they do it with neurons in a brain?
Some absolutely crazy and insane experiments if this ability grows.
Could they edit an animal's brain? Can they teach things to animals???
Yes it is. At least in part.
> It's the bedrock of all other science.
Yes it is. At least in part.
> The goal is to find solutions and to advance the field
That is only one of the goals - but it is not the goal.
> we seem to be treating it like some sort of occupational therapy for bored geniuses.
I certainly hope not.
> Many solutions AI can find can bring us closer to these - so let's fire up whatever datacenter we can find and get us to these outcomes.
This has nothing to do with your earlier points, but absolutely - let's do that!
If I may, I think that in general, you are confusing math-as-tool with math-as-art.
Most math degrees literally give out a Bachelor's of Arts.
It is a tool at some points, art at others - and sometimes the art happened to become a really important tool.
By all means, use AI for building tools.
But you can't ignore its deep rich history as an art.
Power to the people man!
I'm really excited for this to be successful and stay in place.
It's going to end up being something quite unique perhaps in a ways similar to Switzerland's unique democracy.
Citizens dividend has been a core idea since literally Henry George: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Citizen's_dividen...
Just because you don't know what it means doesn't mean they don't.
If the probability changes over time that the price might go up and back down for a 6 month period which is bounded inside of a single auction-able period, then the auction would not have ever captured it correctly... Low frequency auctions assumes perfect risk prediction which isn't realistic and comes with large insurance and analysis overheads.
Many georgists propose LVT + citizens dividend which is in effect a better version of a wealth tax with UBI - meaning it would be highly re-distributive from the asset-rich class to the asset-poor, and therefore very positive for inequality.
The terminology is terrible.
But yes. When they say land they actually mean "natural resource".
The idea is that human-made resources should have their profits go to humans, but natural resources (most notably location value) do not belong to humans because humans did not make them, and also, the economic incentives normally associated with markets such as supply/demand management and price discovery don't apply because supply can't change.
Its extremely economically efficient and is endorsed by many economic thinkers on both the right and the left, as well as many social justice activists.
This is a decent recent video on the concept as it pertains to location value: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suiU5b9tmoE
If your Bitcoin is on someone else's computer, it is not your Bitcoin.
Depends on what counts as a different way I guess.
And on if you're applying some kind of discrete physical model of the world or not...
I've got some reading to do it seems...
Much better!
> For the computer science collaboration, the group has decided to make the natural language proof and Lean formalization public immediately, and we are publishing them directly to our GitHub repository. For the physics collaboration, the group has decided to hold off on releasing the AI-produced artifacts and instead work on writing it up themselves.
> All of these approaches involve tradeoffs. On the one hand, the collaborations empower experts to foster unpacking the results and contextualizing them in the broader academic community. On the other hand, choosing initial shepherds necessarily shapes who gets involved first and creates asymmetry of information. We welcome feedback on how to broaden participation and make this process more useful.
Very good!
I was highly critical of their approach with the earlier mathematical publications, but this is much improved.
Most importantly, they aren't releasing slop papers that would never have been published in any self-respecting journal or made it past a deep round of peer review questioning.
> We are committed to ensuring funding for researchers to independently examine, explain, and build on the results above.
> We continue to invite feedback on the best way to disclose results and engage with scientists to accelerate discovery.
Well done!
Now you need to actually LISTEN to the community and the feedback, so you aren't done yet, but this is a much better start than last time. Keep it up!
This certainly checks that box!
On-prem has a problem of distributed labour costs.
On-prem might eventually become cheaper, but my guess is that won't happen any time soon.
For the time being, centralized and at-scale installation is where you can get much, much lower labour per watt costs.
Here is another take: Speaking is closer to thought that writing! Can I write a blog post now?
That might be what pediatricians say to YOU, or what they would give as generic aspirational goals, but frankly I think generic aspirational goals are silly.
Wouldn't no screens ever be safer at all ages if you're worried about screens? Its not like teens don't have problems with social media...
I think its important to separate recommendations from ideals.
For one, an ideal is not pragmatic and is only true "all other things being equal". It ignores trade-offs.
Second, an ideal for one is an ideal for all, but a recommendation for one is not a recommendation for all.
Do you also eat only vegetables, never smoke or drink, and go on a run for 30 minutes every day (of course same for kids as well)? Do you practice gratitude and volunteer weekly?
My point is simply that less screens is probably directionaly correct, but pushing consistent standards or recommendations is silly. Everyone is at a different level and should have different goals. We should all work on using less screens in whatever way we can, and understand how far we are from an ideal, and what damage is caused by that mismatch, but we shouldn't act like one arbitrary standard is actually magically correct and should be a global requirement.
Note, I say that while literally knowing people who run k8s clusters on pis for heir home lab with like 3 users. Good people. I love them to death, but they also may or may not have recently tested positive for autism.
International media is much better than it used to be.
Data privacy and security must not be sacrificed.
A shift is needed towards simplification and minimization of attack surfaces.
I've entirely removed several dependencies which provide some pretty nice features, but unfortunately make things almost unmaintainable.
I want to go much further though to simplify architectures themselves even if it makes far worse ux.
When you're calling a function, you're putting some things into the function... You have to get the things first before you can put them in...
Why didn't it evolve like that in the first place? Is it a byproduct of mathematical notation? If so, I wonder why mathematical notation evolved that way in the first place...
I comment from time to time.Sometimes I notice I'm going back/forth with a bot.Anecdotally, 2+ years ago bots were clearly stupid.I'm recently encountering a lot less obvious bots, and a lot more lawyer-sounding commenters.This has me concerned, because I'm sure the bots are still out there, but their tactics have improved.Do you avoid bots? How do you identify them? Have you noticed any...
For example, this raises the issue of a drop in quality and a change in publishing model - which is obviously quite different than parroting back an existing argument and saying its bad like you are suggesting.
> Even if you lost 60 percent of your readership, you might still make a lot more per story, because you can pump them out in seconds.
In fact it probably only solves a minority of them.
I don't think it's fair to say the narrative sucks unless you know exactly which problems they were concerned about.
Treating it like a fair comparison implies that AI would be conscious.
Never been invited, but I've also never felt smart enough for that community. I'm glad I can read it though!
https://proofsandprompts.com/2026/10/08/100-reactions-to-100...
And then tell me that this has not damaged the mathematics community.
I would urge you to reconsider your stance, and in particular to put deep thought into why you believe OpenAI is not going about this wrong.
You might have an org policy that says that an llm can't make decisions because an llm can't be held accountable - but that's your choice.
You don't need to operate with a model where everything has a human accountable for it in the end.
If you don't like the decisions an llm makes, you can replace it with another or put a human in charge of that decision in the future instead.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but you can technically do it.