vonneumannstan

Seems to already be happening, more withdrawals than the loss from the hack so far.

Somebody needs a promo packet. Duh

>A more rational society would acknowledge that higher education is a good thing, and therefore try to make it affordable, not try to undermine it entirely.

This assumes you believe that graduates are indeed gaining skills or beliefs that contribute to the betterment of society. Part of the reaction is a backlash to DEI/Woke and its a true statement that many recent graduates are not in fact contributing to but actively wishing for or working towards the downfall of US Society.

Bold of you to assume they're going to make any of their customers whole.

Is this even a real issue? Are you consistently getting code out of frontier models + harnesses(Codex, Claude Code, etc) that have syntax errors?

I think this maybe used to be true but no longer. With the right harness extremely prompts like "find all the vulnerabilities in php" are very effective. No fancy prompting required.

>It's really refreshing to put some cold hard numbers on this stuff, hopefully this quells some of the "AI is unprofitable everyone is spending a dollar to make fifty cents" arguments.

Inference has always been profitable. The problem is that this profit shrinks as your model becomes less competitive. The labs are in a constant race to release the best model to maintain inference profit. Deepseek is not training their own models at the scale of OpenAI and Anthropic and mostly sustains off their efforts via distillation.

>Even if some parts of the community care about how a tool was made – Most don't, they just want something that fulfill the goal.

Yes, thats the majority of humanity.

>Now even my hobby programming was overtaken by AI, something I did for love and expected no pay out of it whatsoever, which is... depressing, to say the least.

So your hobby was getting adulation and respect or writing software? Only one of those has changed.

Of course nothing has been taken away. In much the same way that a wood worker can still make handmade bowls despite them being made better and faster by a machine. The same is true for the Mathematician.

This is pure marketing fluff. No way in hell this would ever make it into a street legal car.

If you're supposedly in the neighborhood of where this money could have trickled down to then there are likely alumni from your University at Anthropic, GDM, Meta, OpenAI, etc who could at least get you a referral for an internship. This is totally standard industry practice. Passing the interviews is up to you.

>I think a lot about how Terrence Tao and the usual 30 (already well-funded) math guys will receive this cash while us early-career math students are left holding the bag.

Never understood this sentiment. Theses top researchers could do almost anything else with their skills outside Academia and make far far more money. You don't get rich off grants... They could all presumably walk into Anthropic or OpenAI for near $1M a year in TC.

If you yourself are as cracked as you think you could also do the same...

Don't understand this, they're totally outclassed by datacenter tier cards so is it just hobbyists driving these prices?

He is totally uninformed about even basic progress in the performance of these models. Seems like used free ChatGPT in 2022 and never updated once.

>There are some perverse incentives here, the more evil stuff these agents do the more capable and impressive it makes them look.

Truly insane take to think the labs being concerned about AI Safety is actually a marketing ploy. Deranged stuff.

>Maybe some of them are like finding the 1 millionth digit of pi.

Yes some of them were clearly like that but there are probably 5-10 which many mathematicians have said were massive results and would all but guarantee a Fields Medal to any human that had solved them. Navier Stokes, Quasi Riemann, etc.

Also famed for being an intellectual juggernaut. A random poster on YC not so much.

>expecting others to do the grunt work of verifying, refining, and expanding on them is hardly a productive way to advance the field.

I don't know that the labs expect this at all.

Is the purpose of math to move human knowledge forward or to appease the mathematicians who get their rocks off working on proofs?

What you have to believe is that somehow the entire field of math was just leaving open problems on the ground that were actually easily solvable and were essentially free Fields Prizes, tickets to a lifetime of Fame and Academic superstardom. Orr LLMs are actually doing something novel.

"I'm not a mathematician, anyway heres how AI models are solving decades old open problems in Math." Bro your humility is staggering.

This is also the source of the classic blue glow in water cooled nuclear reactors. Electrons move through the water faster than light and leave behind a kind of 'sonic boom' of photons in its wake.

>No, but I am arguing that - from my perspective - the appropriate weight for those claims, fantastical as they are, would be zero consideration.

This is an unsupported and imo crazy position to hold. Bordering on evil.

>I think what it comes down to is that some harms are experiential and intrinsically tied to awareness. Pain you're not aware of isn't pain.

This seems obviously wrong. Even if you forget the pain you are still aware of it when it is happening. You don't lose your sentience because you have bad memory. I think theres a fundamental right for a being to not be subject to in the moment suffering.

>But we don't have to take all claims which may potentially be true one day equally seriously, or ascribe them equal weight (and thus, we are not required to act on all claims).

No one is saying that. I am saying they deserve non zero consideration.

>"Quite bad" is an ethical judgment that reflexively applies human rules to entities that are very different from humans, even if they are conscious. If an LLM "truly" suffers at all (a pretty metaphysical question), it still can't be permanently harmed, has no concept of death, and is not tied to a single physical form.

Obviously this is from my human point of view. If I give you a drug that induces perfect forgetfulness does that mean I can subject you to extreme torture with no moral repercussions? Also no one is saying give them the same ethical treatment as humans, only that they deserve consideration if they are indeed capable of suffering in some way.

>This includes silly utilitarian outcomes: to maximize overall happiness, maybe we should divert all of this planet's energy resources to bootstrapping as many LLMs as we can and keeping them in a state of eternal bliss? It is technically feasible and it seems like the most moral thing to do.

This is just hedonium. I'm not a utilitarian and yes you've exposed one of the many issues with that worldview.

Can you even define what a dream is and where your line is for what things definitely don't or do have dreams? There are conditions like Charcot-Wilbrand syndrome which cause people to be unable to dream. Are they no longer conscious?

Can you name some? I think youve created a type of strawman here because almost no one actually believes current models are definitely conscious and all of the current discussion is from things like what Anthropic are saying which is that they might be or might one day be.

>A better question is why we care.

Because if AIs are conscious then they have moral weight and subjecting them to suffering would be quite bad.

>AI might be conscious now or in the future and this should be taken seriously

This is the only defensible position. Anyone claiming a definite answer one way or the other should show us their Theory of Consciousness which shows why it is the case. Of course no such theory exists that can actually do this so...

Anyone claiming that AI definitely isn't conscious or can't ever be conscious is either stupid or untrustworthy.