@lu_sichu
dms open nlab fan account/arxiv surveyor/pubmed enjoyer,two culture bridger, vacuous high gossiper,dearth of any domain expertise,reluctant g theorist,gpu poor
cold 🥑 @coldhealingThe way "cuck chair" has gotten so ingrained in the cultural consciousness is really odd, really pornbrained. It's a normal chair in the hotel room for you to sit in
dnap @dnapwayDario reveals the people who called his GPT-2 fears "pseudoscience" in 2019 are now all applying for jobs at AI labs "I personally was super freaked out by [GPT-2]. I looked at it and I said, my God, you just scale this thing up another factor of a million and it'll be better than humans at everything. This is the defining economic and scientific moment of the modern age. We just don't know it yet. This is going to determine the fate of nations and economies and the future of humanity." "Maybe 10% of the people around me had exactly the same reaction, and it was often the smartest ones. 90% of the people around me, because GPT-2's capabilities in any particular area were not that impressive, it could translate languages, summarize a document and write a few lines of code here and there. It was the broadness and the generality." "But people would look at it and say, in any particular area, that doesn't seem so smart. And so many people just shrugged and they just dismissed it." "I just look at it and I say it's the same thing over and over again. The limitations of the models, six months from now, the things that seemed hard, they're going to be easy. 12 months from now, the things that seemed impossible, the models are going to be doing them regularly." "It's everything we saw with GPT-2; we're seeing it over and over again in wider and wider swaths of the world. And the world is gradually finally being convinced." Daniela Amodei: "I remember at the time there were some very well-respected computer scientists and AI and ML leaders who basically bullied some of the researchers who worked on [GPT-2] on Twitter and were like, this is stupid. We don't know why you guys are even talking, this model is so incapable." "It was like you were sort of a quack if you believed this was a really significant moment." Dario: "That's all been memory-holed. All the researchers who were like, oh, this is pseudoscience, it doesn't make sense, all of them are applying for jobs at the LLM companies." "We never say it out loud to any particular one, but we look at them and they're like, we remember what you were saying in 2019. You have no credibility on this matter."
Sequoia Capital @sequoiaAnnouncing No Limit: a bot building tournament hosted by @Sequoia, @citsecurities and @OpenAI. Teams of 1 or 2 get 60 minutes to build a pokerbot from scratch. Agents play thousands of games across six scored rounds. Open to university students and recent grads (‘25 or ‘26). Regionals in Boston, Pittsburgh and the Bay Area in early November. Top five teams from each fly to the Finals. $100K grand prize.
verlainne @cafeantinomieone interesting point is that i spent time in a lab that reused things so now i use my extra plastic petri for a lot more things. practical confidence makes things much more approachable. also i learned how to keep nematodes which are very cool… and amoebae and slime molds :D
norvid_studies @norvid_studies
Andrew Curran @AndrewCurran_Claude is the only author listed on this paper, in contrast to the OpenAI papers, where the human co-authors are listed. There are a lot of strange things about this. It's fun to guess. Conjecture time. I shall reveal my thought traces: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 are the same model with the same weights; the only difference is the guardrails. We are about to get Fable 5.5 - in fact, Fable 5.5 is ready to deploy now, and Anthropic could do so at any time. If they follow the same pattern, and I think they will, this implies the existence of a Mythos 5.5. I believe Mythos 5.5 wrote this paper. The way this is worded - 'Provenance. The core algorithm was found on October 16 by an internal Claude research model with 14M output tokens and no human input. Anthropic researchers worked with Claude to improve the presentation, resulting in this paper. Independently and concurrently, an internal model at OpenAI claims to have proven a similar result [Ope26]' - makes me think Claude was not prompted to solve this. I think Mythos was asked to autonomously find and choose general open problems to solve itself, as part of an unannounced project to demonstrate recent advances in autonomy and research taste. You can see this taste in Fable 5.5's student; Opus 5.5. This recent advancement in taste and creativity - which happened in September - is not clearly expressed in benchmarks, but it is why so many people are currently switching to Claude as their primary. I think this research project will be announced with Fable 5.5, as part of Anthropic's big media blitz to boost the IPO. One of the things X has taught me is that many people, if they can't see something moving, can't imagine it moving. This causes them to be continuously surprised by developments in this industry, because the frontier is invisible. I think this project has been running autonomously for some time and has made an unknown, and probably significant, number of discoveries, and not only in math. Do not think Anthropic has been sitting idly while OpenAI repeatedly makes these huge science announcements. This is a war. This ETH result was released without any announcement from Anth at all despite its significance, and they only did so to respond to OpenAI's ETH reveal. They posted it late last night without saying anything. It was up for hours before levent even mentioned it. What value has one coin to a dragon who sleeps upon a mountain of them? This makes me think they are sitting on a pile of discoveries, a golden hoard, and they are saving them up for the big IPO shock-and-awe campaign which will soon begin. And when it does, they will announce multiple discoveries across many fields.
Andrew Curran @AndrewCurran_This is extremely confusing, but an internal Claude research model also independently refuted the Exponential Time Hypothesis on October 16, with 14M output tokens and no human input. 'Anthropic researchers worked with Claude to improve the presentation, resulting in this paper.'
U.S. Department of Education @usedgovThere’s Magic in Learning! 🪄
