BurdensomeCount
Thou Shalt Read BC's Writings!
The neighborhood of Hampstead is just at present exercised with a series of events which seem to run on lines parallel to those of what was known to the writers of headlines and "The Kensington Horror," or "The Stabbing Woman," or "The Woman in Black." During the past two or three days several cases have occurred of young children straying from home or neglecting to return from their playing on the Heath. In all these cases the children were too young to give any properly intelligible account of themselves, but the consensus of their excuses is that they had been with a "bloofer lady." It has always been late in the evening when they have been missed, and on two occasions the children have not been found until early in the following morning. It is generally supposed in the neighborhood that, as the first child missed gave as his reason for being away that a "bloofer lady" had asked him to come for a walk, the others had picked up the phrase and used it as occasion served. This is the more natural as the favorite game of the little ones at present is luring each other away by wiles. A correspondent writes us that to see some of the tiny tots pretending to be the"bloofer lady" is supremely funny. Some of our caricaturists might, he says, take a lesson in the irony of grotesque by comparing the reality and the picture. It is only in accordance with general principles of human nature that the "bloofer lady" should be the popular role at these al fresco performances.
User ID: 628
If AI was able to write prescriptions for me, I would choose Astra over 95% of doctors.
Make that 99% of doctors and I'd agree. Smash the cartels!
Is there anything stopping humans from continuing to explore Navier-Stokes and related problems, even now that we have an oracle that can just tell us the final answer? Of course not. But we're irrational beings, and we're likely just not going to put the same kind of effort into it without the reward waiting at the end.
Sure yes I agree. But the fault for this lies with humans, not with AI. Humans should be blaming themselves for this and resolving to do better.
A lot of weird shit is about to happen, and I’d like to discuss it with you, not (just) with Claude.
Totally agreed. I'm becoming more and more convinced with what I'm seeing on a daily basis (not like I have any particularly strong links to the AI companies, so this isn't secret insider info or anything, just what I'm observing on the margins of the AI transformation, which has already made huge impacts in quant finance) that what makes us special is not our intelligence, but our humanity with all its flaws.
Looks like we're getting another big load of solutions soon from OpenAI, this time at least with more consideration for human mathematicians https://openai.com/index/advisory-group-on-mathematics-and-ai/ :
On August 28, we began training a new internal model. In addition to resolving the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize problem, this model has now resolved more than 100 long-standing open problems across most areas of mathematics. The pace of its progress in mathematics has surprised the mathematicians within OpenAI. This has led to internal discussions on the best way to inform the community of the rapid progress to prepare and adapt the field.
Exciting times, as they say. Their new group:
The group will operate independently from OpenAI. The group will have the freedom to offer advice we have not requested, comment on OpenAI’s impact on mathematics, and make its advice public. Its value depends on its members being able to exercise their own judgement and challenge ours. Its members will not be paid by OpenAI, and the group can change its membership as it sees fit. Importantly, the group will not be responsible for advising us on how to pace our internal progress on mathematics.
Working with this group is a first step. There are difficult questions ahead about how AI can support mathematical understanding and how the benefits of these capabilities can reach the wider community. We want mathematicians to be at the center of shaping the answers.
Initial Members of the Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, hosted at the Institute for Advanced Study:
François Charles (ENS-PSL)
Camillo De Lellis (IAS, GSSI)
Timothy Gowers (Collège de France, Cambridge)
Martin Hairer (EPFL, Imperial College London)
Nikhil Srivastava (Berkeley, Simons Institue)
Ulrike Tillmann (Oxford, INI)
Ravi Vakil (Stanford)
Edward Witten (IAS)
Melanie Matchett Wood (Harvard)
As an ex-mathematician who now works in a field with no time for sentimentality (if it works, we use it, if it doesn't, we throw it out) I'm quite happy to see AI push the boundaries of the field. My mathematician friends are understandably more reserved about things, but apart from those who literally wanted to just be an academic they're all at least somewhat interested. Equally though another part of me is quite pissed off that we now have a gaggle of commissaries who decide on when and how the top labs will be doling out crumbs of mathematical insight to the general public. This kind of crap, if anything, is what leads to the creation of the "permanent underclass", to use a phrase that is currently a la mode with the AI types. What next, a committee for AI and law? A committee for AI and medicine? A committee for AI and finance (I shudder)???
We've had proof of blowup in forced compressible 3D navier stokes even before we got it for the incompressible version. And yes, this is a theoretical result about partial differential equations with minimal relevance to the real world.
At this point the AI doubters should be eating a double serving of Crow. And the best thing about it all is how this is the worst AI will ever be.
In other news, OpenAI released GPT Image 2.5 today as well, representing yet another significant advance in AI generated images. I'd feel bad for the human artists etc., except the've been dead for over a year at this point and we might as well have their eventual replacement AI be as good as possible.
The Collatz so called proof was specifically developed to exploit a known bug in the Lean kernel. This proof was an attempt to actually solve the problem. It's like the difference between a virus appearing in the wild that wipes out the human race vs one that was specifically developed in the lab to wipe out the human race. Just because someone might prove the latter is theoretically possible that shouldn't make us paranoid and start worrying about natural viruses turning up that can wipe out the human race.
I'd be very very surprised if this proof there's a finite time blowup turned out to contain a bug.
China isn't ahead at this moment in time, but yes, they will be if western labs stop R&D for 12 months.
And this is why I like what China is doing so much. If western labs stop R&D then if not within 6 months, most definitely within 12 months nobody will be using your models anymore becuase they've all shifted over to the subsidised development Chinese models. Plus, China is now ahead in the AI race.
Surely you put the American datacenters in North Korea over Mongolia, no? That way if the US reneges they'll find out when they wake up tomorrow morning that their data centers are now being used to find the most effective way of nuking American soil...
- Prev
- Next

Hoo boy. The question is, is the novel worthy of the award regardless of whether or not it's AI written standing on its own merits? If so then I suggest it gets the award and for next year the committee can update it's rules to forbid AI submissions.
More options
Context Copy link