"Terence Tao, you dumbshit" is not a judgment I would have ever thought possible before a few months ago. Tao complains "AI is generating terrible proofs: great results, but no care for elegance, for who understands them, or for what comes next". You've just described what you are supposed to do as a human being, fool. It's not the chisel's job to make a sculpture look beautiful; those choices belong to the mind and hand of the sculptor. I've been writing software for 50 years. If I, a crusty old fart from the days of punched cards, can accept that I will never write a significant amount of code by hand again - that my job is steering and quality-checking an AI now - then what is *your* excuse for mental inflexibility, golden genius boy? I'm pretty sure that if AIs actually had enough mathematical taste to be consistently elegant, and then were good enough at explanations to make their proof accessible, which is what you say you want... ...you'd be bitching harder, because you'd be entirely obsolete. Quit your whining, you spoiled primadonna. Go do your job.

Heads up, @OpenAI and @AnthropicAI. Rumor reaches my ears that you're doing a stupid thing, and should stop before you damage yourselves. I hear you've now nerfed your models so that when people try to use them to clean the spamware and spyware out of their televisions, you block that. If you really want Chinese open-weight models and open-source projects like OpenWaldo to eat your lunch, crippling your models so that people paying expensive subscriptions can't use them for completely legitimate purposes is a great way to accomplish this. If, on the other hand, you'd rather have a volume business, maybe stupid arbitrary restrictions that look like they have the sole purpose of protecting corporate sleazeballs aren't such a good idea. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

The only way out is through. They're calling it the Bugpocalypse. LLMs are being used to find long-hidden cracks in the software infrastructure, and it's happening at a furious rate. 3% of all compromises in computing history happened in the last week, claims one source? I believe it. There are people saying public access to the frontier models ought to be locked out, or heavily guardrailed, over this. The problem with that idea can be summed up in one sentence: when lockpicks are outlawed, only outlaws will have lockpicks. The lockpicks will be Chinese open-weight models, if nothing else. There's no way to stop those from becoming ubiquitous. There are two futures in front of us. One in which only the bad guys have lockpicks, and security holes go undiscovered until they're exploited. Another in which everybody has lockpicks and is aggressively red-teaming their own software so it gets fixed before the holes are exploited. The corpus of human code is huge but finite. The number of defects in it has to be finite too. We can fix those defects now; we have a million friendly robots to do it with. The only way out is through.