Xi is supposed to visit the White House soon and there are supposed to be AI talks.

They make giant ones too for bigger stuff. I think Adam Savage has a video about them for grouping unfinished project parts together.

I didn't see his video, but after many years I finally figured that out independently and felt like a fool for it taking so long to realize. That's a real game changer.

I usually just get them from IKEA. They have different sizes from 0.4l to 6l.

I try not to overfill them if possible, much easier to see what's inside.

It's also possible he shared drafts of the work with someone else, who asked chatgpt to explain it to them with training on. Tao seemed to know lots of details of the work before anything was published, though also worked on the problem in the past with big results so maybe just guessed.

> and that humans are NOT making nice progress on

They've pretty much said their own work was heavily agent driven. Levent is in a particularly bad place here because while he probably had a lot of background in the Jacobian Conjecture problem, he made the solution to that one sound like someone asked the question and he just fed it to Fable during the world cup. Whether that nonchalantness was to just seem hip or was to promote Anthropic, which he has stock in, or was just the truth I don't know though. But it makes this one seem similar, when they might have had really had nearly a year of very valuable feedback to the models.

I was referring to the overall pattern of apparently sniffing around for recent mathematical progress then setting the AI on it to see if the problem is now easy enough to solve (if you have the money).

Terrance Tao has lamented this practice as being unhelpful for mathematics, and likely to lead to humans working in private to avoid this.

Tao has also noted that many of these AI math proofs don't really help mathematics (nor does it seem they are intended to), since for many of them the proof was never the point, it was the math expected to be needed to be developed along the way, which the AI solutions don't provide.

> has lamented this practice as being unhelpful for mathematics

A related point is that the actual solution approach is never revealed. What was the role of humans guiding the agents ? was it fully autonomous ? etc. It is in the incentive of the AI labs to trump the powers of the LLM, but in practice it is humans guiding the agents on the overall approach, This is never admitted. For example, in the announcement on NS there was only an output artifact given but no indication of how it was arrived at, and not even a writeup. This is what disappointed many folks as it was done purely for one-upmanship. As other have noted, the benefit is in the journey or process and not in arriving magically at a destination.

I don't think it's as bad as that sounds; in math people work all the time with conjectures they aren't sure if true, and work out a lot of other interesting math based on whether it is or not. Something like Turing's Oracle machine gives lots of interesting math just assuming one could exist, even if it couldn't. It may be that there are things proved we can never come to a human understanding of, but still keep getting interesting math that relies on it that has aspects we can appreciate and enrich our knowledge from.

The vast majority of major global automakers program their vehicles to automatically unlock the doors immediately following a severe crash. I think they just weren't eliding the context and posting the full notes, not as criticism of this: nowhere in the commentary mentions it.

> Which seems to be referring to the unique ability to move the car, which other cars don't have.

Most cars with keys in the ignition/keyfob in the car after a crash have the ability to be moved if they are still operational (a requirement of this one too). I'm not sure about Waymo, the Jaguar one does still have a physical steering column though and isn't fully drive by wire.

For the base model?

I think Google does train on anything you put into docs if you aren't careful with the Gemini integration?

Yes, this is a problem with modern AI systems in general. It's not just OpenAI, and if you know any artists you know this is why they're pretty vehemently opposed to all AI.

I've been asked over 15 times by Claude code to turn it back on (with the prompt defaulted on so if you accidentally hit enter your data is sucked in if you don't catch it).

I do think it ended up being after a power outage though and it was some kind of config corruption.

If you ask it not to think about something that doesn't cause the pink elephant issue?

There's latent space thinking inside the model and then there's the thinking chain of thought words you see the model output. Of course the former is still happening even when you say 'don't think about it' but the latter can be controlled a great deal better with Astra.

Interestingly of the two solved, both have rejected the prize money.