z7

> https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/pressemitteilung...

You're leaving this out?

On 26 February 2026, the Administrative Court of Cologne (Verwaltungsgericht Köln) ordered Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), in interim proceedings, to refrain from classifying and treating the AfD as a “confirmed right-wing extremist organisation” pending the conclusion of the main proceedings at first instance.

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/afd-einstufung...

> The field in question is formal verification. It’s notable that those two words appear nowhere on Bend’s webpage or in its codebase. The developer has built an entire language around a field seemingly without realising that said field exists.

I checked the developer's X account, they have written numerous posts about formal verification, so this specific claim ("without realising that said field exists") seems to be false.

François Chollet wrote in February that he expected ARC-3 to be saturated in "about one year".

"Frontier models today perform very poorly with a minimal harness. However if big labs start directly targeting the benchmark like they did for ARC-2, numbers will go up fast."

https://x.com/fchollet/status/2022054537293705260

Chollet writes he expects AGI now sooner than 2030, "given progress is happening faster than I expected."

https://x.com/fchollet/status/2095607046129463577

> The cost of generating the proofs for all 10 of these breakthroughs combined was under $2,000 at Sol API prices.

https://x.com/polynoamial/status/2083470822258467194

> The incredible Yitan Zhang (https://newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/pursuit-beauty) worked on proving this conjecture for 7 years. Moh, his advisor, wrote that Zhang "failed miserably" in proving the Jacobian conjecture, "never published any paper on algebraic geometry" after leaving Purdue, and "wasted seven years of his own life and my time".

https://x.com/aminkarbasi/status/2079129649830137989

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitang_Zhang

I never saw any buttholes in them. Maybe this is some kind of Rorschach test.

"Hey Leibniz, how do you live with yourself knowing that your binary system helped eventually replace human conversations?"

"I just tested my hand in a mini version of this scanner. Images that are higher quality than MRI, whole body captured in <1 minute, virtually free to run. This is going to change medicine."

https://x.com/SebastianCaliri/status/2067452733356122303

"As Alexander predicted in 'AI 2027,' OpenAI did release a major new model in 2025; unlike in his forecast, it’s been a damp squib. Advances seem to be plateauing; the conversation in tech circles is now less about superintelligence and more about the possibility of an AI bubble."

I'm not sure how many AI researchers would find this accurate. It seems to me that under conditions of ambiguity people often default to describing their preferred version of reality.

The comparison isn't really like-for-like. NHTSA SGO AV reports can include very minor, low-speed contact events that would often never show up as police-reported crashes for human drivers, meaning the Tesla crash count may be drawing from a broader category than the human baseline it's being compared to.

There's also a denominator problem. The mileage figure appears to be cumulative miles "as of November," while the crashes are drawn from a specific July-November window in Austin. It's not clear that those miles line up with the same geography and time period.

The sample size is tiny (nine crashes), uncertainty is huge, and the analysis doesn't distinguish between at-fault and not-at-fault incidents, or between preventable and non-preventable ones.

Also, the comparison to Waymo is stated without harmonizing crash definitions and reporting practices.

> The West is not complicit in the actions of the Iranian regime

What about the 1953 CIA/MI6 coup that overthrew Iran's elected prime minister?

That's pretty racist. It's rejected on account of its origin. And it is given no chance to succeed by merit.

"You only live once."

Why state this as absolute fact? Seems a bit lacking in epistemic humility.

Grokipedia submission (currently censored / flagged):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45726459

Hypothetically, what if the AI-generated blog post were better than what the human author of the blog would have written?

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...

Current cope collection:

- It's not a fair match, these models have more compute and memory than humans

- Contestants weren't really elite, they're just college level programmers, not the world's best

- This doesn't matter for the real world, competitive programming is very different from regular software engineering

- It's marketing, they're just cranking up the compute to unrealistic levels to gain PR points

- It's brute force, not intelligence

An encyclopaedia is a lossy representation of reality.

Meanwhile this new paper claims that GPT-5 surpasses medical professionals in medical reasoning:

"On MedXpertQA MM, GPT-5 improves reasoning and understanding scores by +29.62% and +36.18% over GPT-4o, respectively, and surpasses pre-licensed human experts by +24.23% in reasoning and +29.40% in understanding."

https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08224

Yes, but the jump in performance from o3 is well beyond marginal while also fitting an exponential trend, which undermines the parent's claim on two counts.

>The actual benchmark improvements are marginal at best

GPT-5 demonstrates exponential growth in task completion times:

https://metr.org/blog/2025-03-19-measuring-ai-ability-to-com...

GPT-5 is #1 on WebDev Arena with +75 pts over Gemini 2.5 Pro and +100 pts over Claude Opus 4:

https://lmarena.ai/leaderboard

Some previous predictions:

In 2021 Paul Christiano wrote he would update from 30% to "50% chance of hard takeoff" if we saw an IMO gold by 2025.

He thought there was an 8% chance of this happening.

Eliezer Yudkowsky said "at least 16%".

Source:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sWLLdG6DWJEy3CH7n/imo-challe...

How do you explain Grok 4 achieving new SOTA on ARC-AGI-2, nearly doubling the previous commercial SOTA?

https://x.com/arcprize/status/1943168950763950555

"Grok 4 (Thinking) achieves new SOTA on ARC-AGI-2 with 15.9%."

"This nearly doubles the previous commercial SOTA and tops the current Kaggle competition SOTA."

https://x.com/arcprize/status/1943168950763950555

Quoting Chollet:

>I have repeatedly said that "can LLM reason?" was the wrong question to ask. Instead the right question is, "can they adapt to novelty?".

https://x.com/fchollet/status/1866348355204595826

It's just predicting tokens:

https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1jl5qfs/its_ju...

Why are you hallucinating feelings? Also, appeal to authority. ("Why are your feelings relevant to the wizarding laws of Hogwarts?")

>For starters, this completely blocks generation of anything remotely related to copy-protected IPs

It did Dragon Ball Z here:

https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1jjtcn9/the_new_im...

Rick and Morty:

https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1jjtcn9/the_new_im...

South Park:

https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1jjyn5q/openais_ne...