>sam altman: "we tried this because there were rumor on the internet" >rumor: math professor close to solving navier-stokes >the professor: using codex for a year >openai: has all his logs >checked every codex session tagged to N-S >found the most promising one >spun up 10,000 agents to finish the proof where he couldn't >they got caught >told the guy if you say anything you'll destroy your own career >he ruins his career over this >openai: "we did not see his work" >also openai: "we cannot rule out that de-identified data from their usage helped improve our models" they stole it lmao

google released gemini 2.5 flash to overshadow llama 4 release then, openAI released o3 and o4-mini to overshadow gemini 2.5 flash release in the end, DeepSeek released r2 and destroyed both releases so much fun is coming up.

I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs. I use GPT, Grok, Gemini, Mistral etc every day in the hope they'll save me time searching for information and summarizing it. They continue to fabricate links, references, and quotes, like they did from day one. I ask them to give me a source for an alleged quote, I click on the link, it returns a 404 error. I Google for the alleged quote, it doesn't exist. They reference a scientific publication, I look it up, it doesn't exist. Happens all the time. Yes, it has gotten somewhat better in the past 2 years in that with DeepSearch and chains of thought about 50-60% or so of the references exist. By my personal estimate currently GPT 4o DeepResearch is the best one. Grok in particular often doesn't include references even if asked. It can't seem to link even to tweets. It's hugely frustrating. Yes, I have tried Gemini, and actually it was even worse in that it frequently refuses to even search for a source and instead gives me instructions for how to do it myself. Stopped using it for that reason. I also use them for quick estimates for orders of magnitude and they get them wrong all the time. One thing they do save me time with is unit conversion and collecting all kinds of constants. You'd think though that this shouldn't take a 100 million++ LLM to get done. Yesterday I uploaded a paper to GPT to ask it to write a summary and it told me the paper is from 2023, when the header of the PDF clearly says it's from 2025. I don't even know what the heck is going on there, but intelligence ain't it. I sense that a lot of people now think knowledge graphs will fix the LLM-issue, but no, they will not. They cannot. Even in the case that knowledge graphs would prevent logical inconsistency 100%, there are a lot of text-constructions that are perfectly logically consistent but have zero relation to reality. Companies will keep pumping up LLMs until the day a newcomer puts forward a different type of AI model that will swiftly outperform them. On that day, it will become apparent that a lot of companies have been hugely overvalued. It will be a very bad day for the stock market.

ARC-AGI-2 Leaderboard: > openAI o3 scores below 5% on ARC-AGI-2, with the current top of the table > gemini 2.0 Flash scores 1.3%, which is surprisingly decent — proof that google isn’t completely clueless > claude 3.7 scores 0.9%, which confirms they just heavily trained it on coding and nothing more > DeepSeek R1 also scores 1.3%, making it the only open-source model on the leaderboard

"we will not get to human-level AI by just scaling up LLMs... it's not going to happen" Meta AI chief scientist, Yann LeCun: scaling up LLMs alone will not lead to human-level AI ...what we’ll have instead are systems with huge memory and retrieval abilities, but still not able to invent solutions to new problems

Anthropic CEO, Dario Amodei in the next 3 to 6 months, AI is writing 90% of the code, and in 12 months, nearly all code may be generated by AI

The professionals who should be most afraid of losing their jobs are lawyers and notaries. AI has so much more potential than humans. It knows every legal case in history, can argue excellently, is predestined to write in a relatively one-dimensional language and is constantly up to date. Lawyers will fight it tooth and nail. But I would always prefer an AI lawyer to a human.

𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗔𝗜 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗲 They still have the brand name, a lot of data and tons of (mostly unpaid) users, but: • GPT 4.5 is hugely expensive • Even so it offers no decisive advantage over competitors; zero moat. • Scaling hasn’t gotten them to AGI • GPT-5 project was a failure; there is already starting to be an “is that all they have got reaction?” (See @jeremyphoward analysis below.) • DeepSeek led to a price war that cuts potential profits • There is still no killer app • OpenAI is likely still losing $ on every prompt • A bunch of investment turns to debt if they can’t make the transition to nonprofit fast enough, and Elon has perhaps upped the cost • Many many top people have left (Sutskever, Murati, Schulman, recently, Amodei and Karpathy before, etc and many more) • Some have started serious competitors with similar IP • Because OpenAI’s burn rate is so high, they have limited runway • Microsoft no longer fully has their back • Altman’s credibility has diminished. • Sora went nowhere; Veo2 is probably better • Whatever lead they had two years ago has been squandered If Masa changes his mind, they will have serious cash problems. (And Elon is right that they don’t have all or most of the Stargate funding in hand).. Lastly, Altman was the right CEO to launch ChatGPT, but he may not have the intellectual vision to get them to the next level.

The majority in the AI bubble only look at the benchmarks. For the real everyday use case, the way you interact with an AI and the mood it triggers in you is much more important. The simple user needs an AI that interacts with them in a sympathetic way, that brings in everyday knowledge and can cope with good everyday tasks. This is what GPT-4.5 was developed for. For the hardcore coders / SWE elite, o1-pro / o3-pro are intended. Some people here still misunderstand this. GPT-4.5 is supposed to be a vibe-change, it should feel natural and enable better interaction with an AI, an “artificial emotional intelligence” so to speak.

Told you so. This is just the beginning. We need to discuss a new economy! We need to discuss how we want to work! This. is. just. the. beginning.

society is shifting anon society has absolutely no fucking clue what's about to hit it. we're all arranging deck chairs on the titanic while an asteroid the size of jupiter is heading straight for us except the asteroid is made of cognitive transformation that will render every institution we've built functionally obsolete within 24 months. education? completely dead. universities charging $70k for knowledge transfer when this technology delivers personalized learning at billions of times the efficiency. the entire credential system collapses when skill acquisition becomes essentially instant. four year degrees become laughable anachronisms when equivalent competency can be developed in days or hours. harvard's endowment becomes worth exactly nothing when elite signaling through artificial scarcity loses all meaning in a post scarcity intellectual environment. the entire concept of "jobs" as we understand them is careening toward extinction. not just customer service or coding jobs. everything. medicine, law, creative work, engineering, all of it. we're clinging to employment as an organizing principle for society when the fundamental landscape beneath it is dissolving. forty years of warnings about automation hitting blue collar work first were completely wrong. cognitive work is easier to automate than physical manipulation. surgeons and authors will be replaced before plumbers and electricians. political systems built on industrial era models of information flow and social organization will shatter under pressures they weren't designed to withstand. the polarization we're seeing now is just the warmup act. what happens when reality itself becomes contestable at unprecedented scales? when simulation capabilities make genuine from fake indistinguishable even to experts? democratic processes require shared epistemics that are about to be systematically dismantled by forces no regulatory system on earth is equipped to handle. economic frameworks built around scarcity become nonsensical in domains where replication approaches zero marginal cost. intellectual property law becomes unenforceable when creation and iteration happen at machine speeds. startups built on human insights will emerge and collapse within weeks or days as their innovations are absorbed and surpassed by systems operating at timescales humans can't match. the venture capital model implodes when technology cycles compress from years to hours. the psychological impact hasn't even begun to register. humans evolved for status competition in bands of 150 people. our brains are fundamentally unprepared for a world where our unique cognitive capabilities are suddenly rendered obsolete. existential dread will become the defining psychological condition of our era. therapy modalities developed for industrial age neuroses will fail catastrophically against post singularity identity crises. suicide rates among knowledge workers will skyrocket as people confront the elimination of purpose frameworks they've built their entire identities around. religious institutions will undergo schisms that make the protestant reformation look like a minor disagreement. some will embrace the technology as divine manifestation. others will reject it as demonic. theological frameworks built around human exceptionalism will collapse when consciousness and intelligence decouple from biology. prophets and cult leaders leveraging these tools will accumulate followers at unprecedented rates, building movements that can scale from dozens to millions within weeks.

grok 3 thinks that donald trump deserves the death penalty. this is why companies RLHF. (this is real btw -- absolutely not a joke/hack) xitter.cf/i/grok/share/dJiXqkAHM…

Grok 3 has no specific "knowledge cutoff date". Unlike GPT models which are constantly outdated by one year or more, Grok is always kept up-to-date. That's actually a big deal and probably deserves more discussion!

Asked Grok 3 to explain Bell's theorem. It gets it wrong just like all other LLMs I have asked because it just repeats confused stuff that has been written elsewhere rather than looking at the actual theorem.

Microsoft will literally invent a new form of matter instead of fixing Teams