Everybody knows that. You contact NASA. Then a black helicopter will pick you up, bring you to an airbase and fly you straight to the white house, where you will be introduced to the actual truth, while a team of very excited scientists with biohazard suits praise and examine the artefact. If you're still sceptical, they will take you to a large hidden hangar in the middle of the desert and show you around.
Of course, but there is a big asymmetry: For some systems there are a lot more people interested in hacking them, compared to those interested in protecting them.
But i guess it's also a matter of money, because a company could potentially balance that by throwing x times more agents etc. at it.
Maybe today's US frontier models provide enough information content, so that the momentum suffices to use them as a base for every coming generation of distilled and later fine-tuned models?
Exactly. For solving problems every help is a blessing. It's just clashing with our legacy society system. This system forces us to have jobs. But the real problems humanity is facing, like planetary boundaries or a decent base standard of living for all humans, are completely unimpressed by that human made model.
> Metamathematics, by Kleene, is programming in maths.
Ookay.
Back in the day i was confused by 'Linear programming', which is optimisation and has nothing to do with coding.
> every feature is ultimately filled in and the underlying beauty is obscured by a fractal of complexity required by the ever growing requirements.
Right. I would say Mathematics tries to unobscure (patterns in) nature. Engineering is creating tools, sometimes leveraging natural patterns.
But yeah, Fourier or Laplace definitely created tools, too.
Why are mathematicians a kind of programmers? Besides applied maths, aren't they more researchers that explore and discover, in contrast to the majority of programmers who are more like handymen?