Anthropic's profit estimate they released a while ago was a masterclass in deceptive reporting. They didn't include training costs, stock based compensation, or liabilities. Token gross margin is not profit.
But it seems this "economic value" is often created by depleting actual physical resources (e.g. people's health, clean air and water), usually resources belonging someone other than the person capturing the "value".
Can't all the prestige-maxed mathematicians still study all these famous problems after ai solves them. And even if they convince open-ai to stop dunking on them, some normal user with gpt 7.1 on the normal chat interface will do it in a year.
Even if they stopped anyone from releasing ai proofs for five whole years it would be meaningless seeing as these problems are decades old already. Humans weren't JUST about to solve them until openai stepped on their toes.
This smells of extreme 'cope'. Am I really supposed to believe that all of these problems could have been solved, were right about to be solved, etc. But it just happens they are all getting solved now when AI is getting really good at Math...
They’re not necessarily claiming the solutions were imminent. The big questions here from a mathematician’s perspective are to what extent these LLM systems are discovering conceptually new ideas compared to merely combining and pursuing known frameworks.
Everyone is gathering around patting themselves on the back, but smallpox depopulated an entire continent. Clearly it is possible for a highly transmittable deadly virus to exist.
The real protections are where and how the data is allowed to be used, the state has had the technical capability of breaking into your home, following you, and reading your mail forever. But they aren't allowed to use it in court to prosecute you.
self driving is safer than human driving, why should we apply urgent attention to AI driver safety. Human drivers are killing hundreds of people daily.
We do not generally hold drivers responsible for slips in judgement when driving. Only in cases of extreme recklessness is it normal for a driver to be 'held responsible'.
It is silly that we hold self driving cars to an astronomically higher standard. We all know they are safer than human drivers. And that is true even if they kill 50 people a day.
You can disagree, and I do too, but it is the basis of an interesting discussion.
Personally I think that fully autonomous vehicles need to be at minimum 100x safer than humans in order to maintain a social license to operate. I’m not saying the law needs to codify that. I’m saying that society could never accept a system which was merely 10x safer than humans. Imagine every vehicle in North America was replaced with a robotaxi and road deaths absolutely plummeted from 40,000 to just 1,000 per year. That’s still an article every day about “Elon Musk's river of blood”.
Supervised systems do not need such extreme safety, because the human driver remains responsible. But here’s an idea: if you want to use supervised FSD, that’s fine, but every collision gets automatically uploaded to a repository that is searchable by law enforcement and insurance companies.
reply