alok-g

This from the OP author is also interesting:

Training a 125M-parameter Model to Autocomplete Piano https://simedw.com/2026/08/20/midi-autocomplete/

Can someone explain how does this work behind the scenes?

Also, how much would be typical AI token costs of doing this for various apps, simple to complex using some reference AI model?

Thanks.

The backlog in India is not just because there's more work and less judges.

I would rather wait for AI models to get up to the mark (which may be a few years) and handle the bulk of the cases, than have Indian courts waste everyone's time and energy.

AFAIK, when you use DeepSeek via OpenRouter, it still does not have zero data retention.

See here:

https://openrouter.ai/providers/

I agree that AI needs alignment and validation, and this is already been worked on [*1]. I'll assume below that this is a given.

For the rest, AI itself may be able to handle better than most humans. It already has good idea about what being human is [*2], understands that this isn't a one-dimensional problem, can do balancing like humans would, find more direct/efficient paths than humans. For many things I discuss with AI, I find that it already reasons much better than most humans (not even considering that AI knows so much more than any human).

I think we over-index on "the same prompt will provide different plans". Humans would do the same too. Humans, working in isolation or with collaboration can self-correct, but the same applies to AI.

>> On what ground would you give the machine a pass?

The benchmark I hold is humans themselves. Humans currently have the pass, and have had it since history. Yet, there are many irrational decisions everywhere around.

I hear complaints that AI hallucinates. Yes, it does. Humans do too, and more often than they are willing to admit. The concept of 'god' may entirely be a hallucination (i.e., something not supported by facts). There is no good scientific evidence of prayers working, yet many humans believe in the same.

The real issue is that AI seems to learn and hallucinate in a different way than humans -- it sometimes makes some very silly mistakes. No disagreement, we need to make it better. The pace at which AI can become better however could easily surpass the speed at which humans learn or change. I am not suggesting we give AI the pass till it becomes good enough, there's enough progress on alignment, etc.

>> Do you really think our ancestors chose to cut off their legs in abandonment when they figured that some animals could outpace them?

Great! Here lies an important point. Between humans and animals, we have nature's evolutionary processes, survival of the fittest, ... Depending on how one sees it (and this is a real debate in my mind), we could use AI to enhance our survival and progress faster, or we could see AI as an enemy (like it is another species) and compete.

For some people, the goal is exactly advancements of humans. I, so far, see it as evolutionary progress, whatever form it takes.

[*1] Whether we are doing enough for that or not, is a valid debate.

[*2] AI cannot experience it, it cannot 'know' it in the human sense of knowing if that means something different, but it could emulate well enough.

>> If AI is not working for humans' benefits

>> not working towards an optimization problem set-up by humans

I am suggesting neither of the two.

Not a great analogy but a parent may be working for an infant's benefit without the infant yet being able to understand. Taking an arbitrarily broad example, the problem to optimize for could be "help humanity advance", and other aspects could be subgoals of the same including what mathematics is useful.

I see two assumptions in the core argument, both of which are open to challenge.

1. AI can do proofs, but deciding which problems to solve, which math is useful, is by humans.

2. The math that's picked needs to be understandable by humans.

For #1, AI may be able to play a significant, if not a takeover, role for even figuring out what math is useful.

For #2, understandability by humans may be good for now, but could also turn out to be a significant constraint. Correctness is a goal, trust is an important requirement, human understandability may be an intermediary for that, but not necessarily the end goal.

In other words, the article may stand the current state of the art, but may not stand merely a couple years down the road.

Useful mathematics need not mean understandable by humans. Why cannot AI, in the future, also figure what mathematics is useful. Whatever role we see for humans in mathematics, could possibly be picked up (and done better) by AI (in the future). Choosing proofs, strategies, abstractions, figuring utility, intuitiveness, all are in principle a search problem, including meta-search where needed.

I wonder if the advantage AI has is simply that it has absorbed vastly more collective mathematical experience and can therefore provide better search heuristics than a human.

May I know how much token costs came out to be for this? Also, how did it handle Wordpress plugins? If you have comments on the website, how did you handle those and spam detection? Thanks.

Looks nice.

My website is hosted on 1and1 via PHP. I am guessing that this would not work for me as installation needs server access. Moving to VPS, along with transferring domain, would require more time than I would like to spend. Thanks.

Thanks. I should have seen that myself.

Would the photochemistry of my eyes stay the same? :-)

I would like to hear more (asking genuinely). Thanks.

Thanks for explaining in detail. The part I now understand is that an automation that removes the need for manual work could lead to much higher factory output.

The part I am unclear about is the impact on the supply-demand and pricing:

Say the prices of goods produced go down by 55% on an average (assumed loosely based on OP article that says knowledge work is 60%).

With 60% of the work gone, many humans may lose jobs and many may not have enough savings or investments for living even with 55% lesser cost of goods (while rent, etc. stay similar?).

While the factories could produce more, the demand may be much weaker, so the factories may not have enough need to produce more. Due to competition, the prices should ultimately go down (maximum by 55% in the scenario considered).

How does the wealth per person increase for factory owners, and/or, for others?

The OP article also says GDP growth would accelerate in all scenarios. I am not clear how. If cost of making good go down drastically, could the GDP also not go down instead?

Also, a separate question:

>> though of course individuals will vary greatly in how much wealth they accumulate in this sort of takeoff.

What would be your advice to people during this takeoff. :-)

Thanks.

I would like to understand this more.

What leads to 'very high economic growth rates'?

Thanks.

If AI manages to prove, or disprove, I wonder what would Clay Foundation do for the prize.

See also: https://septabee.nekoweb.org

I had to look up what iocaine route is. Here's an article that explains well:

https://firesphere.dev/articles/iocaine-the-deadliest-poison...

I can see now. Thanks!

Adding: The two paths respectively are about 80% and 28% of the earth's circumference.

Moore's law is flattening, however, designs and implementations are often highly inefficient. Just like software often has bloat, so does chip design.

Sounds like you have implemented some of the features (e.g., sorting for the notes list). Thanks!

Another one I have observed is that it is leaving newlines in between paragraphs of text where for the same .md files, other apps are showing none.

That makes sense. Thanks for answering.

The approach feels asymmetric though now, since by the time AI reaches a point where humans cannot come up with any task that's easy for humans but hard for machines, it (AI) may be able to do some tasks that an average human can't, or do some much better than an average human.

You seem saying:

(1) Consciousness is mandatory for intelligence.

(2) 'AGI' is no different than just 'intelligence'.

(3) Consciousness resides in pineal gland.

(4) Biology is mandatory for consciousness/AGI.

I cannot claim these to be wrong, however, have no reason to believe in any.

We do seem to agree though that the benchmark is incorrectly named.