buzzin_

"If only we had a word for that process that happens before the words come out."

"Artist Formerly Known as Thinking"

It's amazing that you can predict a counterexample to an open math problem, all without thinking.

Of course they can't just talk to themselves and improve the knowledge of the world. They are just stochastics parrots that give you an average answer.

LLMs giving you something novel would be like if you let a model play chess against itself and become the best player in the world this way. Totally impossible.

/sacrasm

So, the Jacobian Conjecture was done, via an counterexample. Can we now put the models to work on an even more difficult problem: Scrolling 100k of text, on a 128GB 24 core processor, smoothly in a browser?

Oh, but it will. Especially in math you depend on definitions and concepts defined earlier, and if you fall behind, perhaps in a class setting, it is hard to catch up, without having somebody who can explain it to you.

But, now, with world class knowledge possessing tutor, you can ask for an explanation of missed concepts, even embarrassingly stupid questions you would never ask a person.

He is known to read HN.

Interestingly enough, ChatGPT started his answer like this only once:

"This is exactly the question I would ask next. My impression is: Most standard invariants are...."

And this was a response to this prompt:

"Is there a chance of an indirect argument of X ~ A^3 coming from computing some invariant of X that forces it to be A^3? (I am not all that expert in algebraic geometry but I'm thinking like degree or Betti numbers or something.)"

Hey, Mr. Tao, where would you put the intelligence of the current models compared to top humans you surely mush have worked with? Perhaps given in the count of people you know that are higher than the newest LLMs? Also, how would you rate the speed of work compared to what your speed is, if this makes any sense?

Nice list. I like it how you also included some made up terms. For completeness, those are not real:

ETag, SAML, CSP, BGP, haproxy, helm file, k8s, SOCKS5, Lamport OTS, Winternitz OTS, SPHINCS, lattice-based, pg-vector, sameSite, httpOnly. (Or, at least, i have no idea what those are ::)

Don't set your goals so low. We already reached 17k on a small models.

Since the whole goal of software architecture schemes it to allow the rest of us non-geniuses to still understand it and modify it, perhaps the same could be true of llms.

Perhaps a million-per-second hypothetical (small) model can be more useful than a state of the art big one.

The chart on this link compares all qwen3.5 models down to 0.8B.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1ro7xve/qwen35_...

It's worse than that. One side of the "circle" is 40 billion, the other side is 300. Why not just subtract it, and say 260 billion is going one way.

The real story is that Nvidia is accepting equity in their customers as a payment for their hardware. "What, you don't have cash to buy our chips? That's OK, you can pay by giving us 10% of everything you earn in perpetuity."

This has happened before, let's call it the "selling the goose that lays golden eggs scan." You can buy our machine that converts electricity into cash, but we will only take preorders, after all it is such a good deal. Then, after bulding the machines with the said preorder money, they of course plugged the machines in themselves instead of shipping them, claiming various "delays" in production. Here I'm talking about the bitcoin mining hardware when the said hardware first appeared.

Nvidia is doing similar thing, just instead of doing it 100% themselves, they are 10% in by acquiring the equity in their customers.

Well, we all know that when a library method crashes, we blame the caller. It can't be the library's fault, the user simply called it the wrong way.

So, similarly, it is Windows fault that it sent some series of commands that caused the poor innocent SSDs to be invisible to BIOS until power cycle.

Absolutely no fault of the SSD. None.

I have found it that if you invest some time in learning how to write quality for loops, the quality indeed goes up.

Also, when writing for loops, you have to explicitly think about your exit condition for the loop, and it is visible right there, at the top of the loop, making infinite loops almost impossible.

The cost of storage space these days is about $0.01 per 100 megabytes.

What is going on in the third example?

"Let a,b,m,n be integers, and suppose that b^2 = 2a^2 ..."

So, (b^2)/(a^2)=2 b/a = sqrt(2)

or, in other words, sqrt(2) is rational. then it goes and uses this in the rest of the example.

I don't think this particular case was a lone wolf problem.

Spoilers: Work your way to the a1 pawn, then a2 king can take the f2 king.

The first 3 minutes of this is pure magic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRkZcTg1JWU

This calls for an universal text to teaching material with tests converter.

"There are many valid reasons for not wanting to take part in the covid vaccine experiment."

I will just ignore the full three phase trials on volunteers, because I am an antivaxer.

There is an informational asymmetry, so rogue exchanges can lie all they want without you knowing for sure, and those that do not want to give you your money for whatever reason always do (lie that is).

This happened with MtGox and permanent withdrawal problems, both with USD and BTC.

With USD, it was "Oh, no, its the banks, they are limiting us to $50.000 per day, it's not us".

With BTC, it was "Oh, no, Bitcoin network has a bug, we cannot process withdrawals, it's not us".

Here you are confusing "total amount of electricity Bitcoin used trough history" and "amount of electricity Bitcoin miners are currently using".

The second is proportional to the current Bitcoin price, the first one, who cares.

"It's proportional to the difficulty."

You just confused the amount of electricity it takes to mine one block, vs, the amount of total electricity all miners spend.

And the total amount of electricity is indeed proportional to the market cap. (with a constant of proportionality being halved every 4 years).

As the original poster said, it is ridiculous that we still have to debate this.

No, total dollar amount of electricity expenses spent on mining does not depend on the price of electricity.

Today, miners are getting paid about $1.5 billion per month. If they like money, they will keep adding new miners and run them until they all in total spend less than, but close to that amount.

So, $1.5 billion per month of fresh money needed to offset this pressure on Bitcoin price.

There goes the argument that Bitcoin is a good "store of value."

"It's weird how so many of the arguments against what I've originally written pretend that it matters whether the reward comes from a block reward or transactions fees. It does not matter."

"It does matter."

Miner do not care, so it does not matter.

This is amazing to watch. hn_throwaway_99 complains that he only gets handwaving and circular arguments against this, only to get multiple answers which are exactly that.

Mining will always spend a large chunk (>50%? depends on the complete distribution of efficiency off all miners) of rewards on electricity. A quick search shows this to be 0.5% of all electricity used in the world. If Bitcoin price goes up 10x right now, this would shortly increase to around 5%.

But, there is also a thing that miners still have to pay electricity in dollars or whatever, so they are forced to sell on exchanges. This creates a downwards pressure on Bitcoin price.

Currently this could be somewhere around $billion per month. So, you need a billion a month of fresh sucker money, just for the bitcoin price to stay the same.

Miners put the price (in dollars) in the blocks, and the medium price is taken as the price. You get penalized if the price you put in is 1 standard dev. or more off. You get 1% less of the block award you would get normally.

What do you mean, it looks like bubble sort? It is bubble sort.

I thought Alpha Zero is stronger that Stockfish, or was, if it doesn't exist anymore.

Except when you read the article, then it doesn't.