I guess we won't know if that's what was used (and maybe even provided as part of the prompt given that both Alpöge and Mathew are mathematicians) since they decided against sharing their Fable conversation and instead opted for a memey tweet as their avenue of publication. We really ought to normalize full transparency in how results come about.
Anyway, if I read Tao's post and comment correctly, there's still a gap from the Vitushkin construction to a counterexample, but chances are that was in the training data. In general, it is just a serious problem for their practical applicability that the models are outputting proofs with absolutely terribly reference hygiene.
I don't think it is nonsensical at all. The author and his collaborator both appear to be bright people, so there's a good chance they had to offer non-trivial insights to guide the LLM, yet it's clearly in the interest of his employer to downplay whatever personal contribution they provided.
Edit: Now the OP is flagged/dead for some reason. You could disagree on their take (calling it a marketing stunt is maybe a bit much), but I think the argument is sound, so flagging seems counterproductive to the discussion.
From a quick look at your profile, the majority of your submissions have been Show HNs. HN only allows some fraction of your submissions to be Show HNs (imagine if the front page was nothing but), so eventually they will just be auto-flagged.
> Yes any company generating csam should not be in business as a legitimate entity.
At the same time, in this corner of the world, acting Minister for Justice (also known for trying to push through Chat Control), and NGO Save the Children, have been working to make legal the generation of CSAM for law enforcement use. So that would certainly make the industry legitimate, and you would already have a customer.
And the cookie consent form is one of those that require you to click a gazillion toggles. Hasn't it been established now that opt-out must be no harder than opt-in?
The time is ripe for deterministic AI; incidentally, this was also released today: https://itsid.cloud/ - presumably will be useful for anyone who wants to quickly recreate an open source Python package or other copyrighted work to change its license.
Would you be able to comment on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47522876, i.e. explain the legal basis for this change for EU based users? If there is none, you may have to expect that people will exercise their right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority.
What is the legal basis of this in the EU? Ignoring the fact they could end up stealing IP, it seems like the collected information could easily contain PII, and consent would have to be
> freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous. In order to obtain freely given consent, it must be given on a voluntary basis.
I'm probably out of the loop, but last I checked, to put an app somewhere that's not the official App Store, they required you to pay their hefty fee for putting it in the App Store (even if you weren't going to do that), _and_ an additional Core Technology Fee.
(And if that's still accurate, one thing I don't get is how that isn't also anti-competitive.)
The workaround for me is to always resize by clicking Alt, right click, and drag. At the end of the day, that's probably just straight up easier, since you never need to bother getting close to the borders of the windows.
One thing it should mean is that anyone using Cloudflare is doing so while risking that its CEO suddenly pulls the rug and closes down the service; not a dependency you want in your stack, and not a great look for a service that's supposed to be usable as a stable high-availability one.
> just said "no go ahead, keep building"? What happens to the companies if they just keep building?
As the article also touches upon, this already happened in the particular case of Revolution Wind: There, work, was forced to stop in August, then in September a federal judge blocked enforcement of the block, and work continued:
Anyway, if I read Tao's post and comment correctly, there's still a gap from the Vitushkin construction to a counterexample, but chances are that was in the training data. In general, it is just a serious problem for their practical applicability that the models are outputting proofs with absolutely terribly reference hygiene.