Google burning through cash with spiralling AI costs
View attachment 369826​

Wait. Capital investment depletes cash?

Color me shocked!

 

https://theconversation.com/hello-t...-post-has-mathematicians-rethinking-ai-283883

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2079028340955197566

 

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2080165738464280725

 

Seems people are using it to solve solvable problems humans didn't care to solve before.

 

Seems people are using it to solve solvable problems humans didn't care to solve before.

I dunno. There seem to be some pretty happy mathematicians.

 

I dunno. There seem to be some pretty happy mathematicians.

Sure, the ones that publish the papers.

https://fortune.com/2026/07/21/ai-solves-jacobian-conjecture-levant-alpoge-claude-fable-5/
Mathematicians grapple with a ‘very rapid and very unsettling change’ as AI cracks yet another century-old problem

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatgpt-just-proved-another-50-year-old-math-conjecture/


ChatGPT just proved another 50-year-old math conjecture

What’s the secret to prompting an AI to solve math problems that have left humans stumped? Tell it to believe in itself

Last Friday’s AI-generated proof seems to have settled the question. It shows that any guess-applicable graph can be doubly covered with no more than eight well-chosen loops (for technical reasons, graphs with big sections connected by a single edge—like twin cities with a single road between them—are excluded). The proof, like other notable AI achievements in math, required surprisingly little in the way of new ideas. It just followed and combined methods humans had tried before and managed to squeeze a bit more out of them. As AI companies continue to scour the mathematical literature for open problems that their models can solve, they seem to keep digging out “easy” quandaries disguised as hard ones—conjectures for which a proof was always within reach but somehow never grasped by humans.

Once a problem gets a reputation for being “hard,” experts and students might spend less time on it, says Andrew Sutherland, a mathematician at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This can make perceived difficulty a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. “My guess is we will keep seeing examples of this—supposedly ‘hard’ problems having ‘easy’ solutions found by LLMs,” he says.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatgpt-just-proved-another-50-year-old-math-conjecture/


ChatGPT just proved another 50-year-old math conjecture

What’s the secret to prompting an AI to solve math problems that have left humans stumped? Tell it to believe in itself

Fine. Blame the lazy human.

That only makes the case for AI stronger.

 

Fine. Blame the lazy human.

That only makes the case for AI stronger.

They're not lazy, there are just other, more valuable problems to spend their human time on. AI has a great future in that sector of obscure problems IMO.

The universe is lazy. That's not a flaw, it's a smart feature. The current crop of LLM's are providing an high powered creative, hallucination, and degeneration multiverse of sorts out of the normal lazy universe by the use of massive amounts of energy.

 

https://futurism.com/future-society/professor-hides-white-font-ai-cheating

Professor Hides White Font in Midterm, Catches Students Using AI in the Stupidest Way Possible
"Thirty-two of my 35 students between two classes failed a portion of their midterm because they all used AI to generate their entire response."



The hidden prompt told the AI to sneak in random digressions about Madagascar
...
Gibson shared some of the most examples in a follow-up video. After introducing how AI and other technologies have impacted society, for instance, one midterm included this puzzling non sequitur: “Madagascar floats sideways through the afternoon.” (“Okay,” Gibson says, after a pause.)

Another droned on about something related to AI and social inequality, followed by: “Madagascar purple bicycle whispers to the ceiling.”

 

https://futurism.com/future-society/professor-hides-white-font-ai-cheating

Professor Hides White Font in Midterm, Catches Students Using AI in the Stupidest Way Possible
"Thirty-two of my 35 students between two classes failed a portion of their midterm because they all used AI to generate their entire response."



The hidden prompt told the AI to sneak in random digressions about Madagascar
...
Gibson shared some of the most examples in a follow-up video. After introducing how AI and other technologies have impacted society, for instance, one midterm included this puzzling non sequitur: “Madagascar floats sideways through the afternoon.” (“Okay,” Gibson says, after a pause.)

Another droned on about something related to AI and social inequality, followed by: “Madagascar purple bicycle whispers to the ceiling.”

My first thought was, if you expect that something like this is needed to catch cheaters, why are you giving the exam in such a way that they even have the option to use AI?

But doing something like this for normal homework assignments, which are almost always worked in an uncontrolled setting, certainly has merit.

I wish I could say it surprised me that so many (90%) cheated, but it doesn't. It's also not new. In the early 1990s, early in my teaching days in grad school, I gave my first and only ever take home exam. The guidelines were clear, explicit, and in writing, including that they were not to discuss the exam in any way with anyone other than myself. This explicitly included other students and even faculty members to ensure that all students received the same information. All but one student blatantly cheated. In fact, it was obvious that it was a group effort and not a bunch of individuals cheating on their own. The exam required that they write a small program and what was turned in amounted to just three distinct programs (plus the one that didn't cheat) with minor variations obviously intended to mask the cheating, such as doing a global search and replace to change a variable name to something else, but the original program used variable names, like 'volts', that also appeared in the comments, so those got changed to largely nonsensical words as well. Since this was a lab course and the final exam only constituted 10% of their grade, I opted to not fail them all because of academic dishonesty (even then, and even at the school I was at, which has a very strong reputation for its academic standard, that would also have been an uphill battle with the powers-that-be), I sent a letter to the home-of-record (since this was after the end of the semester, but hoping that at least a few parents might see it) of each student informing them that their grades were being computed with the final exam removed and the resulting grade was being reduced by one letter grade. They were told they had the option to dispute the result by appealing to the Dean of Academic Affairs and that the burden would be on me to convince the dean that I had an adequate case. I even any student that believed they did not cheat to appeal. Not a single student did.

 

My first thought was, if you expect that something like this is needed to catch cheaters, why are you giving the exam in such a way that they even have the option to use AI?

But doing something like this for normal homework assignments, which are almost always worked in an uncontrolled setting, certainly has merit.

I wish I could say it surprised me that so many (90%) cheated, but it doesn't. It's also not new. In the early 1990s, early in my teaching days in grad school, I gave my first and only ever take home exam. The guidelines were clear, explicit, and in writing, including that they were not to discuss the exam in any way with anyone other than myself. This explicitly included other students and even faculty members to ensure that all students received the same information. All but one student blatantly cheated. In fact, it was obvious that it was a group effort and not a bunch of individuals cheating on their own. The exam required that they write a small program and what was turned in amounted to just three distinct programs (plus the one that didn't cheat) with minor variations obviously intended to mask the cheating, such as doing a global search and replace to change a variable name to something else, but the original program used variable names, like 'volts', that also appeared in the comments, so those got changed to largely nonsensical words as well. Since this was a lab course and the final exam only constituted 10% of their grade, I opted to not fail them all because of academic dishonesty (even then, and even at the school I was at, which has a very strong reputation for its academic standard, that would also have been an uphill battle with the powers-that-be), I sent a letter to the home-of-record (since this was after the end of the semester, but hoping that at least a few parents might see it) of each student informing them that their grades were being computed with the final exam removed and the resulting grade was being reduced by one letter grade. They were told they had the option to dispute the result by appealing to the Dean of Academic Affairs and that the burden would be on me to convince the dean that I had an adequate case. I even any student that believed they did not cheat to appeal. Not a single student did.

Cheats, manipulators, scammers, liars and fraudsters are unfortunately now increasingly admired in our society, perceived as role models that young people look up to. Expecting students who spend masses of time on social media these days, not to cheat when they see such people get rewarded, some even getting government pardons, strikes me as a bit naive.

In the cold light of day in our modern world, cheating is just another cost/benefit to consider.

 

This statement is a little premature, IMHO:

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman claims AI singularity has arrived

​

"We’re now, like, in the singularity," Altman said in an episode of a podcast called "Relentless," which came out on Saturday. “Now we’re actually in the moment that we used to talk about at the lunch table in a very not-serious way."

 

This statement is a little premature, IMHO:

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman claims AI singularity has arrived
View attachment 369958​

Interesting: I was getting the feeling this week that, when looking back, these couple of weeks will turn out to have been the "knee" of the exponential AI curve.

 

Interesting: I was getting the feeling this week that, when looking back, these couple of weeks will turn out to have been the "knee" of the exponential AI curve.

That might very well turn out to be the case. But there's an enormous gap between that assessment and reaching the milestone of a true Artificial Intelligence.

 

...true Artificial Intelligence.

Vernacular AI == LLM (I use them interchangeably).

I don't know what "intelligence" in "artificial intelligence" means.

But, whatever it is, many ordinary humans don't seem to possess it, either.

Or, maybe they have "intelligence", but cannot reason effectively enough to put it to productive use.

 

Vernacular AI == LLM (I use them interchangeably).

I don't know what "intelligence" in "artificial intelligence" means.

But, whatever it is, many ordinary humans don't seem to possess it, either.

Or, maybe they have "intelligence", but cannot reason effectively enough to put it to productive use.

LLM's are language models, they don't model intelligence or actually reason, LLMs are simply not intelligent by definition but they do fall under the broad cover of AI as a field of study. Language is a medium through which intelligence can express concepts. True intelligence is independent of language. Without language, a LLM is fancy space heater. I don't think intelligence will emerge from language

The lack of productive use of innate intelligence is something I totally agree on but I don't see it as a total negative having worked with Marines early in my life.

 

 

 

Wow, software used a buffer. This "J-Space" exists across AI platforms.

The model does not have an inner mind. It has a small, readable, causally load-bearing slice of network where deliberate reasoning concentrates, the authors said so with unusual honesty, and the internet heard “sentient.” Good tool. Wrong discourse.
https://snehal.ai/what-j-space-actually-is/