ltononro

so basically you should use Qdrant anyway lmao :p

Pretty cool read, thought about sharing it with y'all

s happens, first impressions are what they are

well, does it all boil down to capitalism?

I think there might be a take on learning with AI vs the pressure to develop fast. AI could be an amazing tool to learn. But who wants to learn when you had to deliver 3 days ago? The corp culture is kind of what is killing it. Not sure how things are going in universities tho. If you stop and use it to learn, take time, ask questions. I am sure you can learn a shit ton out of it, most people were learning in the beginning when you had to copy/paste/debug in chatgpt. If I had to answer to this, I'd say that learning has become optional, helpful, but optional. Not in the sense that it is not good to learn it (or anything), but in the sense that you need to opt to learn it, and to do so you will have to sacrifice speed. Do what I say makes sense?

not really lol, just a practical joke. but it opens my mind for some interesting applications within claude code!

boom

Do you really think that tho? I mean, it is the only one doing something other than all-in LLM BenchMaxxing lmao :D

Looks like someone could make some dollars re-creating openrouter from scratch and proving reliability across evals/models/providers/configs

>what the world-class 2 mathematicians did was sat down and started working on their proof for over a year

If they were not related to anthropic I'd probably agree with you. OpenAI is much more for science than they are imo. Anthropic culture is all about "machine go brrrr" more than all of the other labs. If they had access to better models they'd probably would've one-shotted the solution. When the creator of bun was just "vibe-sciencing" it was ok. There is little to no evidence that they've been working using AI in this problem for over a year. Maybe they've been working on the problem for decades. So many other scientist have. Are they better because they threw a prompt and let it go brr??

When we put this in the perspective of how agents are changing the landscape of math/science, true it is shitty and weird. When folks are saying these scientists by anthropic that vibe-science'd the solution are victims, just because they did it with a smaller model, it is not defensible imo. And credit loses meaning here. The credit is shared with all the scientists that contributed somehow with the data in the AI pre-pos/training and not the prompter.

lmao

I see the six seven reference there mate

Is it really? If I ask my swarm of agents to read about every relevant stuff about NS problem online might me more than what any researcher can prompt the machine these days.

If the machine is highly non-deterministic, it is a matter of luck to get to the result, therefore using agentic swarms to optimize chance.

Sad reality

Agree! Not sure I believe that Buckmaster/Alpöge were guiding the AI. This is just their way of saying that they had something in the process and deserve merit.