RetroFedlagrangeinterpolator, lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems
Instance: awful.systems
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 0
Comments: 44
Posts and Comments by lagrangeinterpolator, lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems
Posts by lagrangeinterpolator, lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems
Comments by lagrangeinterpolator, lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems
TechTakesThe OpenAI hacking incident has put everyone on edge. Anthropic, not to be outdone, decides to publicly announce that they have committed not one, not two, but three crimes! Come on! I was told this wasn’t a marketing campaign!
Before the days of AI 2027, he became famous in 2024 for posting one of the original pieces of writing in the line-go-up genre: Situational Awareness. It seems that like any good grifter, he used this opportunity to make money (in this case by starting a hedge fund).
There is something about this picture, a warehouse full of books to be destroyed by Anthropic for training data, that just makes me sick. Knowing that they are destroying books in the abstract is bad enough, but seeing the sheer scale of it makes me viscerally angry.
Karen Hao called her book Empire of AI for a very good reason. The empire has all these noble narratives of bringing civilization and progress to the colonies, but in reality the empire only sees resources to be extracted, repackaged, and sold back to their subjects at a fee. Kudos to those who saw this immediately and fought against it. Shame on those who believed in the narrative of progress, to the point where many of them are collaborators with the empire.
Whenever a smarmy fellow on Linkedin posts about how AI is making so much progress in coding or math, I want them to see this picture. I want them to see the videos of families in tears after a data center takes away their home with eminent domain, and other families who have to deal with the resulting pollution. Go beyond the bloodless math of tokens and instead see for yourself what this all truly costs. I hope it was worth it.
It gets worse. I found another article about the same podcast: Sam Altman says AI won’t shorten the workweek because humans secretly enjoy being busy.
“Technology, for a long time, has been promising people that they’re going to work less and they’re going to have all this leisure,” Altman said. “But somehow we never get the promise of the four-hour workweek at mass scale in society,” he added. “And I don’t expect AI to change that.”
“It’s like a relative game. People are very focused on how they’re doing relative to other people,” the CEO said.
“I think we’re all going to be much busier than we thought we were supposed to be in a post-superintelligence world. We’re still going to complain about it, but secretly we’re going to be happy,” Altman concluded.
The chuds are all at r/accelerate now. “We’re the unapologetically Pro-AI alternative to r/singularity, r/futurology, r/artificial & r/technology which are becoming filled with Luddites, Techno-Decelerationists, Techno-Reactionaries, & Anti-AIs.”
Clamuel did another podcast. I don’t want to waste my time watching it, but I want to sneer at some choice quotes from news articles breathlessly reporting this stuff as gospel 1, 2
“We are now, like, in the singularity”
Is the singularity in the room with us right now? Even the people on X the Everything (Including CSAM) App aren’t so convinced.
Altman said on the podcast that just a decade ago, the so-called singularity still felt like a distant and improbable dream — something he and his colleagues would discuss casually over lunch.
“Now we’re actually in the moment that we used to talk about at the lunch table in a very not-serious way,” he said. “I’ve been waiting for this my whole life, and I think it’s going to be incredible, hugely positive, awesome for the world.”
Do you feel it? Do you feel incredible? Do you feel hugely positive? Do you feel awesome, now that the singularity is here? Oh wait, he’s speaking in the future tense again, never mind. Force of habit.
It’s also funny how he talks about how positive things are gonna be immediately after the super scary hack done on Hugging Face (really due to incompetence on both sides). Oh no, the AI is gonna kill us all! It’s going to be incredible, hugely positive, awesome for the world.
Later in the podcast, Altman criticizes AI leaders who have repeatedly warned that AI is dangerous. He didn’t name Anthropic, his primary competition, but its CEO, Dario Amodei, is well-known for making dire predictions about the future in his calls for greater attention to safety.
“I also think some of the alternative visions painted by other companies are quite terrifying,” Altman said. “I’m going to make sure that gets pushed against and is not what happens.”
At least Clammy realizes that all the doom trolling about how AI will replace and destroy all humans turns out, surprisingly, to lead to overwhelming negative public opinion. But this statement truly reassures me that Scammy has good intentions about AI safety. He will make sure this is pushed against and is not what happens. He wouldn’t want another super scary, dangerous hack that just so conveniently turns out to be excellent marketing.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says one of his biggest concerns about AI isn’t whether it becomes too powerful in and of itself, but that a single company could control that power.
Yeah, it would be really bad for Anthropic to control all the power of AI. It would be a disaster to hand everything over to Anthropic.
“Every time that humanity has traded off its liberty for safety, it’s been a long-term net loss,” Altman said. “We are going to put this in the hands of people. We’re going to empower them. We are going to let society express its ideas and use this technology in the way they want.”
Society is expressing its ideas about AI, all right. But I feel like they aren’t what he has in mind.
Altman, meanwhile, said preventing such power from becoming overly concentrated has long been central to his vision for AI, even as his company continues to keep its own models closed.
“For so long now, I have felt focused on this singular goal of abundant intelligence and a belief that incredible human prosperity will come from that, as long as we don’t have a weird power concentration and kind of a new authoritarianism,” he said.
Well, we seem to have a weird power concentration and “kind of” a new authoritarianism, but I don’t see any abundant intelligence or incredible human prosperity.
Lots more sneers on the Better Offline subreddit.
It is surprising how many exceptionally strong mathematicians have started working for OpenAI and Anthropic. These people would have easily become professors at top universities if they stayed in academia. I think many mathematicians, especially the competitive ones at the top, have a “progress at any cost” attitude (and I’m sure the paychecks helped). As for the results, you still need good mathematicians to sift through all the output to identify that the proofs are valid.
I would honestly be positive about universities developing their own specialized math AI (in an ethical manner) to help mathematicians get these kinds of results, but right now, AI is inseparable from these evil companies. Thankfully, I believe this is a likely outcome in the future because the AI companies will one day implode.
From what I’ve seen, most prompts are in plain English. I suppose the part where the AI parses the statement correctly is much easier than the part where it boils a couple lakes in the process of bashing its head against the wall trying millions of different combinations of random shit from the literature to slap together a proof. For one of the big results (cycle double cover), the prompt specified that the AI could use 64 subagents and was required to not give up for at least 8 hours. The tokenmaxxers would be proud, we didn’t need that forest anyway. Thank god math doesn’t have a CTO to look at the expense reports.
Among the three big results I’ve looked at (unit distance problem, cycle double cover, Jacobian), two were counterexamples and one of them had a short 3 page proof using ideas from the 1970s. The Jacobian conjecture is an extreme case because a single counterexample is enough (for unit distance, you technically need a family of counterexamples), and it is easy to check with very basic computations. It is telling that all of these announcements came from OpenAI or Anthropic employees, who presumably have unlimited access to their AI. Nobody really knows how many resources they spent on this, or what else they tried. Nobody really seems to care about this question, either.
I think there is a phenomenon where supposedly hard questions are much easier than expected, because by chance nobody found the right approach for a while, and eventually it becomes famous as a “hard problem” which makes nobody want to attempt it.
What I’m more worried about is many people starting to use AI to try and prove small lemmas for them in their projects. Of course, a $200/mo subscription is absolutely necessary to them. This honestly feels like a repeat of Claude Code back in February. The software engineers eventually realized that AI is absurdly expensive after the AI companies realized that spending $14000/mo to service a $200/mo subscription is a bad idea. If the AI vendors couldn’t squeeze money out of rich software companies, what exactly are they gonna get out of poor mathematicians and universities? Also, there is the cognitive decline caused by overuse of LLMs that has yet to set in.
I think a serious possibility is that AI generated papers flood the zone with uninteresting incremental results that are eventually meaningless and full of mistakes. Right now, math is full of smart, dedicated people, so at least major results are reviewed carefully. But as AI alarmism drives away many honest people from the field, the remaining mathematicians will be burdened with far more work to review, and their cognitive faculties will be eroded by LLM use. Despite 4 years of development, $3 trillion of debt, mountains of stolen data, all the agents and harnesses and loops and other expensive tricks, as well as the advantages of Lean in math research, LLMs still hallucinate.
I believe this is happening with software, but at least there are objective consequences for screwing up there (guy gets his home directory deleted, email is sent on a guy’s behalf without permission, small business gets every customer subscription cancelled). But nothing bad happens if there is a mathematical mistake in a paper and nobody catches it. One could say to just provide a Lean proof, but there is still the issue of making sure the Lean code actually matches the content of the paper. Exactly what force will correct things?
Still, I don’t think this is the most likely possibility. The AI companies are extremely unsustainable financially, and it’s not like they’re very popular. Once they collapse, I believe there will be a re-evaluation of how LLMs should be used in research. If they are used (let alone trained), someone is going to have to pay the bills.
In the end, we have to ask ourselves the question of why one does math. To me, math is not really a field where you memorize trivia. The real value comes from being able to think abstractly and rigorously from first principles, and from understanding why something is true rather than just knowing it is true. It is another aspect of your ability to reason as a free human. A few dedicated people go into math research, but your skills can easily go to many places. If you’re starting undergrad, you have plenty of time to see how this all pans out before making a decision.
long rant about math
The recent big AI results in math have left me in quite a bad mood. I believe the main ingredient is Lean, which is a formal language resembling a programming language. Math proofs written in Lean can be verified deterministically with a computer, which really helps mitigate the hallucination problems of LLMs. Back in the days of pure scaling LLMs and Sam Altman talking about Dyson spheres, I was skeptical that LLMs would do math, but I did think that perhaps in the future, techniques using these formal languages could contribute to math. Well, it seems like OpenAI and Anthropic had the same idea and I underestimated their limitless checkbooks. Many of the biggest results were announced by mathematicians directly working for them (and presumably being paid a handsome amount).
For what it’s worth, after the last of these big announcements, I decided to try one of these AIs on one of my small problems that I couldn’t figure out. The AI did give a solution. That is, until I checked it thoroughly and realized that the it had a subtle but severe mistake that made it useless. I reprompted it, it failed again, and I ran out of tokens. I’m sure someone will tell me to shell out $200/mo for a pro subscription.
In the math and computer science research community, this is all anyone can really talk about right now. Honestly, after watching this whole AI bubble starting from the very beginning, I think the AI companies want to use marketing to stoke fear that all mathematicians will be replaced. But now, I am just too tired to argue. The amount of alarm and the extraordinary social pressure to use LLMs has soured me to this whole research thing. If becoming a researcher will one day require supporting these evil AI companies, I would rather just not. My dream job now is Factorio developer.
A lot of annoying people in technical areas view the world in terms of an intelligence hierarchy: the smartest people do math and physics, the slightly less smart people do coding, and the dumb people do everything else. So if AI can do math then it can do anything else. But, as an example, it is abundantly obvious now that AI is not replacing filmmaking. The techbros might be moved by arguments about how hilariously expensive video generation is, and how all these videos are 2 second clips stitched together so you won’t feel the uncanny valley. But the real reason is that nobody wants to watch slop made with no intention or feeling. Also, nobody wants to support the AI companies, which could not act more evil even if they tried.
The mania in math right now quite resembles the mania in software engineering back in December-February, when Claude Code definitely solved all coding. I don’t think the boosters expected that by April, everyone would be complaining about how expensive it all was while seeing an endless parade of vibe coding disasters (and no increase in productivity). Even if math research works out perfectly well (which is a still big if), it’s not going to pay the bills. They would need to find a use case in the real world, where hallucinations can cause serious damage and cannot be formally prevented. And they have certainly tried. Math will not change the fact that all of this will collapse.
Here’s A Taxonomy of Omnicidal Futures Involving Artificial Intelligence by Critch and Tsimerman, which approvingly cites our favorite AI 2027. Nobel disease is still a thing (I think the rationalist beliefs are quite pervasive among mathematicians).
I find it really funny how after he gets booed he says, “If you don’t care about science, that’s okay, because AI is going to touch everything else as well. Whatever path you choose, AI will become part of how work is done.” Yeah, if you’re worried that AI is only going to fuck up science, don’t worry, it’s going to fuck up everything else as well. Was he trying to stick to a (terrible) script, or is he genuinely this incapable of reading a room?
“When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat. You just get on.” No, my mom taught me about stranger danger. I know what to do when a sketchy old man named Eric Schmidt pulls up with a rocket ship that says FREE ICE CREAM.
“The rocket ship is here. Let me give you some advice. First, find a way to say yes. Listen.” Thanks for revealing how AI adoption is really about coercion. It doesn’t matter what you think, AI is inevitable and you ignorant Luddites are gonna have to find a way to like it.
Truly a masterclass in public speaking by Eric Schmidt. When the audience reacts negatively to what you said, just double down and shove it down their throats. You’re a billionaire, so you know better than them.
How many people, if they were given $1.3 million just once in their lifetime, would figure out far better uses for that money than this guy?
The last several years have been the monkey’s paw moment for rationalists, where they keep getting what they want and realizing it’s actually bad. As for why they keep getting what they want, just look at who’s funding them.
(Also featuring a “Chinese curse” that isn’t actually a phrase in Chinese. At least it’s not “may you live in interesting times”.)
I attended a town hall hosted by the department at my university supposedly for general discussion about department affairs. Considering the university had recently made moves such as adding “AI” into the very name of the department, I had suspicions that much of the discussion would be about AI. (I realize I’m doxxing myself but whatever.) I mostly came for the free food, but I was also interested in seeing what people thought about AI.
The event started with a talk by a prominent professor with major administrative power in the department, and indeed the talk was mostly about AI. His views were that he personally didn’t like AI, but he believed that it had changed the world (particularly in programming), and that it was going to stay. One of his justifications for pivoting the department to AI was ensuring universities had some say in AI and not letting all the control go to unaccountable corporations.
The reaction from the audience was a pleasant surprise to me. He asked everyone how much they were excited about AI (hardly anyone) and how much they were worried (most of the audience). By far the most amusing moment was when someone asked, “What if the assumption that AI is inevitable is wrong? What if AI does not live up to its promises?” (Sadly, I don’t remember the exact words that the person said.) The professor’s response was that by this point, there are so many trustworthy, smart, prominent people who definitely wouldn’t fall for scams, and they have adopted AI. He trusts those people, so he trusts that AI is genuine. I don’t know if the audience member accepted this explanation, but I hope not. Our modus operandi is FOMO.
The pizza was only ok, not really worth a 90 minute event.
This really goes to show how much they need to rely on the LLMentalist effect, despite the AI boosters insisting that the AI is totally different now, everything changed in the last few months. They do not care about creating a useful, reliable tool. That concept doesn’t even occur to them, since why do that when AI is magic?
In any case, they are incapable of creating a useful, reliable tool. Deep down, the only thing the AI companies have at their disposal is the ELIZA effect. OpenAI has every incentive not to truly eliminate AI psychosis, because they need engagement. They only want to mitigate the extreme cases where people go insane and cause bad PR for them. But mild AI psychosis is totally fine, it’s great when people are addicted to your product and make the numbers go up!
Somehow this is no worse than his usual fare, such as a thumbnail that is just a bunch of colored lines resembling a line chart but without representing any actual data, with some random marked points labeled “Dark Farms” and “Human Zoo”.
Unfortunately, our problem right now is not Donna the below-average Democrat but Donald the fascist. And when it comes to fascists I do not ask if they are above or below average.
The fire code thing really is an excellent example of LessWrong Brain. Fire truck drivers insist on needlessly large trucks (no citation) which makes roads 30% wider than they would otherwise be (no citation) which has “probably” “non-trivially” contributed to larger cars (no citation) leading to enough additional road fatalities to cancel out the lives saved by stricter fire codes (no citation).
The LessWrong Brain argument starts with a deliberately contrarian conclusion and proves it with a Rube Goldberg chain of logical syllogisms. Of course, citations are strictly optional, and they are free to misinterpret them as they see fit. The only real standard of each claim is “looks good to me”, but you are supposed to be impressed that they managed to string a dozen of them together to reveal some shocking, deep truth of the world that nobody else knows about. The AI 2027 nonsense is an infamous example of this.
He uses the word “fermi” which is cult jargon based on Fermi estimation, a.k.a. guessing shit with back-of-the-envelope calculations. Not exactly what you want if you want to convince people to reform fire codes, especially if you have zero citations for anything.
I guess people just aren’t rational enough, and the only reason the fire codes are so irrational is because people are emotional about fire codes. Firefighters are apparently revered as heroes, when it is the LWers who should be the heroes. After all, firefighters merely save people from fires, while LWers buy multimillion dollar mansions to talk about saving quadrillions of hypothetical people from hypothetical basilisks!
It’s fine, spyware is only a risk when it’s bad people’s spyware. It’s totally fine when it’s Anthropic™-approved spyware!
As for Mythos catching things, maybe they should have used Mythos on their very own Claude Code considering that it has hilariously obvious security exploits, such as this one which inserts an arbitrary string into a shell command. Actually, never mind I don’t see anything wrong here, maybe we should burn another $20k in electricity running Mythos on it again to find out.
I decided to take a look at the bitcoin white paper.
Usually, the introduction of a technical paper is fluff and people quickly move on to the technical parts. However, the casual claims made in the first paragraph of this paper have aged extremely poorly, to say the least. In a better world, Bitcoin would have remained as an obscure academic toy, and this introduction would have remained fluff.
What weaknesses are there in the trust based model? Let’s find out!
It seems like this guy really loves non-reversible transactions! But as we’ve seen with the history of crypto, non-reversible transactions sound really good until you fall victim to a crypto scam and there is no way to appeal to the bank to reverse the charges. Reversibility actually increases trust because you no longer need to be absolutely certain that you’re dealing with an honest person.
Almost like that is a problem of human nature. And it’s not like cryptocurrency has a spotless record when dealing with fraud! The problem with fraud is not the third party (the bank), but with the second party (the merchant or customer you’re dealing with).
The introduction is not long, and most of the paper concerns the technical details of the construction of Bitcoin. By itself, there really is no way to complain about a pile of definitions. But there are still dumb comments that have aged poorly in retrospect.
But why would you want a block header with no transactions? If you wanted to, I don’t know, replace the world’s financial system, you would need to handle millions of transactions every 10 minutes. How big would the blocks be then? And remember that many copies of the same blockchain would need to be stored (certainly, every miner would need to store a copy). How many thousands or millions of times would that multiply things?
Turns out it was a bold assumption to think that businesses would just run their own bitcoin miners.
The proof of security (Section 11) is extremely sketchy by modern standards. (They’re assuming that all attackers would follow a certain format to attack and not try something different. I get it, proper proofs of security in cryptography are very subtle and difficult.) There is also a page of fluff making random calculations with the Poisson distribution. In any case, the security of Bitcoin requires that the collective computational power of the defenders exceeds the power of any attacker (so the defenders can make new blocks faster).
Bitcoin is very strange as a cryptographic system in that the defender must have more resources than any possible attacker. In most cryptographic systems, the system should be secure even if the attacker has vastly more resources than the defender. Your phone’s cryptography should be secure even if some government agency dedicated their supercomputers to try and break it. This means that Bitcoin must waste tons of energy, since that is required to maintain security. Any more energy dumped into it will only increase security and not make the actual transactions faster, which makes Bitcoin horrendously inefficient.
As a purely academic idea in cryptography, it is an interesting curiosity, but the arguments for why it’s useful are sketchy. There are other such curiosities that are much more interesting, like homomorphic encryption or secure multiparty computation. It would be a nice line on a CV, but not “incredible”.
The true significance of Bitcoin was the terrible libertarian economic argument for it, and the chain of events that would transform it into nothing more than a speculative fashion trend. It has nothing to do with the technical details of Bitcoin. The technical and economic arguments for Bitcoin turned out to be so weak that nowadays, the only real support for Bitcoin is that maybe you can sell it for a higher price to a greater fool.
This somehow makes things even funnier. If he had any understanding of modern math, he would know that representing a set of things as points in some geometric space is one of the most common techniques in math. (A basic example: a pair of numbers can be represented by a point in 2D space.) Also, a manifold is an extremely broad geometric concept: knowing that two things are manifolds does not meant that they are the same or even remotely similar, without checking the details. There are tons of things you can model as a manifold if you try hard enough.
From what I see, Scoot read a paper modeling LLM inference with manifolds and thought “wow, cool!” Then he fished for neuroscience papers until he found one that modeled neurons using manifolds. Both of the papers have blah blah blah something something manifolds so there must be a deep connection!
(Maybe there is a deep connection! But the burden of proof is on him, and he needs to do a little more work than noticing that both papers use the word manifold.)
So we should see some proper definitions and basic results on the Kolmogorov complexity, like in modern papers, right? We should at least see a Kt or a pKt thrown in there, right?
Fuck!
Nonsensical analogies are always improved by adding a chart with colorful boxes and arrows going between them. Of course, the burden of proof is on you, dear reader, to explain why the analogy doesn’t make sense, not on the author to provide more justification than waving his hands really really hard.
Many of these analogies are bad as, I don’t know, “Denmark and North Korea are the same because they both have governments” or something. Humans and LLMs both produce sequences of words, where the next word depends in some way on the previous words, so they are basically the same (and you can call this “predicting” the next word as a rhetorical flourish). Yeah, what a revolutionary concept, knowing that both humans and LLMs follow the laws of time and causality. And as we know, evolution “optimizes” for reproduction, and that’s why there are only bacteria around (they can reproduce every 20 minutes). He has to be careful, these types of dumbass “optimization” interpretations of evolution that arose in the late 1800s led to horrible ideas about race science … wait a minute …
He isn’t even trying with the yellow and orange boxes. What the fuck do “high-D toroidal attractor manifolds” and “6D helical manifolds” have to do with anything? Why are they there? And he really thinks he can get away with nobody closely reading his charts, with the “(???, nothing)” business. Maybe I should throw in that box in my publications and see how that goes.
I feel like his arguments rely on the Barnum effect. He makes statements like “humans and LLMs predict the next word” and “evolution optimizes for reproduction” that are so vague that they can be assigned whatever meaning he wants. Because of this, you can’t easily dispel them (he just comes up with some different interpretation), and he can use them as carte blanche to justify whatever he wants.