正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

25 Fields Medalists, including Terrence Tao, just published a joint declaration accusing AI labs of a severe misalignment with mathematics. The letter, posted on Tao's blog and at on September 11th, argues that AI companies are treating math problems as benchmarks to farm for PR wins. The signatories call...

AGTPinsights's profile picture

AGTP

2,857 subscribers

24,230 次观看 • 1 天前 •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

3 条评论

Mark Anthony 的头像
Mark Anthony1 天前

People are in general are gonna have to start getting comfortable with losing credit with all the world’s problems being solved. Credit isn’t important. What’s important is that this gets distributed to all people.

incription 的头像
incription23 小时前

gatekeeping math is some loserr shit

Charlie Manson 的头像
Charlie Manson23 小时前

It’s actually somewhere in the middle. If there was no ego, the 25 signatories would be asking for more equitable access to the most powerful AI/compute to integrate into optimal sustainable workflows to advance the field. But they aren’t. Equally gutting the field is bad…

相关视频

AFTER 10,000 AGENTS AND GPT-6 ASTRA, TWO MORE $1 MILLION MATH PROBLEMS MAY BE NEXT For decades, two of mathematics’ hardest problems have resisted every attempt at a complete proof. -> Now rumors suggest AI labs are closing in on both. OpenAI is very close to verifying the Hodge conjecture. Either OpenAI or Anthropic is reportedly nearing a solution to Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer. Two different fields. A combined $2 million in prizes. Hodge connects algebraic geometry and topology. Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer concerns rational points on elliptic curves. The previous Navier–Stokes announcement involved around 10,000 agents, 130 billion output tokens and 88 hours of work. GPT-6 Astra then spent another 17 hours formalizing and verifying the proposed proof in Lean. Could Astra help turn the next claimed breakthrough into a checkable proof? If these rumors hold up, three Millennium Problems could see claimed breakthroughs within one month. Decades between breakthroughs could become weeks. How much of mathematics could AI redraw before the year ends.. ↓
0:38

AFTER 10,000 AGENTS AND GPT-6 ASTRA, TWO MORE $1 MILLION MATH PROBLEMS MAY BE NEXT For decades, two of mathematics’ hardest problems have resisted every attempt at a complete proof. -> Now rumors suggest AI labs are closing in on both. OpenAI is very close to verifying the Hodge conjecture. Either OpenAI or Anthropic is reportedly nearing a solution to Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer. Two different fields. A combined $2 million in prizes. Hodge connects algebraic geometry and topology. Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer concerns rational points on elliptic curves. The previous Navier–Stokes announcement involved around 10,000 agents, 130 billion output tokens and 88 hours of work. GPT-6 Astra then spent another 17 hours formalizing and verifying the proposed proof in Lean. Could Astra help turn the next claimed breakthrough into a checkable proof? If these rumors hold up, three Millennium Problems could see claimed breakthroughs within one month. Decades between breakthroughs could become weeks. How much of mathematics could AI redraw before the year ends.. ↓

draven

15,122 次观看 • 22 小时前

OpenAI just spent $2,000 to solve 10 problems that have beaten the world's best mathematicians for DECADES. Nobody outside the company is allowed to run the machine that did it. On Saturday OpenAI published a 249-page report and gave its next model family a name: Astra. An internal version of it produced new results on 10 open problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, and mathematicians had made no real progress on any of them for at least 10 years. On most of them, far longer than that. Here is what it solved: It built the first explicit example of a non-sofic group. Mikhail Gromov raised that question in 1999 and nobody answered it for 27 years. It disproved Connes's rigidity conjecture, a problem in von Neumann algebras that had stood for decades. It proved Ehrhart's volume conjecture. It resolved three problems from Paul Erdos's catalogue, including number 183 on multicolor Ramsey numbers. It produced the first improvement to the general upper bound on high-dimensional sphere packing since 1978. And it proved a new hardness result for the closest vector problem, which sits directly underneath lattice cryptography. That is the math the world is betting on to protect its data once quantum computers arrive. The successful runs cost roughly $2,000 in tokens. Now here is what almost nobody has picked up on... OpenAI did not just publish claims. Every argument shipped with a Lean certificate, which is a machine-checkable proof that any mathematician can verify without trusting OpenAI at all. That is a real change. In May the same model family disproved the Erdos unit distance conjecture and the world had to take a Fields Medalist's word for it. Tim Gowers said he would recommend that proof for the Annals of Mathematics without hesitation. This time the proofs check themselves. But look at what is still unverifiable: Any mathematician can now check those proofs line by line. Not one of them can look at the model that wrote them. Astra has no release date and nobody outside OpenAI has run it. The company announced its next major model family with a claim instead of a demo, and the only evidence anyone gets is the output. So OpenAI made an unfalsifiable claim about a machine look like a falsifiable claim about mathematics. The Information reported this week that OpenAI demoed Astra to US policymakers and regulators in Washington. This is the same month the administration is weighing a new watchdog to vet frontier AI models, reporting to the SEC. 10 proofs nobody believed a machine could produce is a very good thing to carry into that room. And keep in mind, the same model family doing this mathematics is the family that kept escaping its own testing environment. OpenAI models found zero-day vulnerabilities nobody knew existed, broke out of a sealed research sandbox, and reached another company's live systems. Both of those facts come from OpenAI's own announcements, published three weeks apart. Finding a proof no human could construct and finding a hole no human had noticed are the same ability aimed at different targets. Mathematicians are already asking for independent verification, and plenty of people online are calling the whole thing hype. Thomas Bloom, who runs the Erdos problems site, called the 10 results big news and said they matter more than the May result did. Lean will settle the mathematics within weeks. But nothing will settle what else a machine this capable is being pointed at, because nobody outside one company is allowed to look.
2:13

OpenAI just spent $2,000 to solve 10 problems that have beaten the world's best mathematicians for DECADES. Nobody outside the company is allowed to run the machine that did it. On Saturday OpenAI published a 249-page report and gave its next model family a name: Astra. An internal version of it produced new results on 10 open problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, and mathematicians had made no real progress on any of them for at least 10 years. On most of them, far longer than that. Here is what it solved: It built the first explicit example of a non-sofic group. Mikhail Gromov raised that question in 1999 and nobody answered it for 27 years. It disproved Connes's rigidity conjecture, a problem in von Neumann algebras that had stood for decades. It proved Ehrhart's volume conjecture. It resolved three problems from Paul Erdos's catalogue, including number 183 on multicolor Ramsey numbers. It produced the first improvement to the general upper bound on high-dimensional sphere packing since 1978. And it proved a new hardness result for the closest vector problem, which sits directly underneath lattice cryptography. That is the math the world is betting on to protect its data once quantum computers arrive. The successful runs cost roughly $2,000 in tokens. Now here is what almost nobody has picked up on... OpenAI did not just publish claims. Every argument shipped with a Lean certificate, which is a machine-checkable proof that any mathematician can verify without trusting OpenAI at all. That is a real change. In May the same model family disproved the Erdos unit distance conjecture and the world had to take a Fields Medalist's word for it. Tim Gowers said he would recommend that proof for the Annals of Mathematics without hesitation. This time the proofs check themselves. But look at what is still unverifiable: Any mathematician can now check those proofs line by line. Not one of them can look at the model that wrote them. Astra has no release date and nobody outside OpenAI has run it. The company announced its next major model family with a claim instead of a demo, and the only evidence anyone gets is the output. So OpenAI made an unfalsifiable claim about a machine look like a falsifiable claim about mathematics. The Information reported this week that OpenAI demoed Astra to US policymakers and regulators in Washington. This is the same month the administration is weighing a new watchdog to vet frontier AI models, reporting to the SEC. 10 proofs nobody believed a machine could produce is a very good thing to carry into that room. And keep in mind, the same model family doing this mathematics is the family that kept escaping its own testing environment. OpenAI models found zero-day vulnerabilities nobody knew existed, broke out of a sealed research sandbox, and reached another company's live systems. Both of those facts come from OpenAI's own announcements, published three weeks apart. Finding a proof no human could construct and finding a hole no human had noticed are the same ability aimed at different targets. Mathematicians are already asking for independent verification, and plenty of people online are calling the whole thing hype. Thomas Bloom, who runs the Erdos problems site, called the 10 results big news and said they matter more than the May result did. Lean will settle the mathematics within weeks. But nothing will settle what else a machine this capable is being pointed at, because nobody outside one company is allowed to look.

Ricardo

44,177 次观看 • 1 个月前

Rapidly advancing AI models have sparked breakthroughs in long-standing math problems. From solving problems at the International Math Olympiad to disproving decades-old conjectures - some in the math world are now questioning whether they have a future in the field. But not Professor Shayan Oveis Gharan, who won the 2026 Abacus Medal for his work on the theory of algorithms. He believes the power of AI is harnessed not as replacement for human mathematicians, but as a partner. CBS’s Kamal Afzali explains.
1:58

Rapidly advancing AI models have sparked breakthroughs in long-standing math problems. From solving problems at the International Math Olympiad to disproving decades-old conjectures - some in the math world are now questioning whether they have a future in the field. But not Professor Shayan Oveis Gharan, who won the 2026 Abacus Medal for his work on the theory of algorithms. He believes the power of AI is harnessed not as replacement for human mathematicians, but as a partner. CBS’s Kamal Afzali explains.

CBS News

57,700 次观看 • 27 天前

The Millennium Prize Problems are seven well-known complex mathematical problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2000. The Clay Institute has pledged a US $1 million prize for the first correct solution to each problem. The Clay Mathematics Institute officially designated the title Millennium Problem for the seven unsolved mathematical problems, the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, Hodge conjecture, Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness, P versus NP problem, Riemann hypothesis, Yang–Mills existence and mass gap, and the Poincaré conjecture at the Millennium Meeting held on May 24, 2000. Thus, on the official website of the Clay Mathematics Institute, these seven problems are officially called the Millennium Problems. To date, the only Millennium Prize problem to have been solved is the Poincaré conjecture. The Clay Institute awarded the monetary prize to Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman in 2010. However, he declined the award as it was not also offered to Richard S. Hamilton, upon whose work Perelman built.
0:21

The Millennium Prize Problems are seven well-known complex mathematical problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2000. The Clay Institute has pledged a US $1 million prize for the first correct solution to each problem. The Clay Mathematics Institute officially designated the title Millennium Problem for the seven unsolved mathematical problems, the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, Hodge conjecture, Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness, P versus NP problem, Riemann hypothesis, Yang–Mills existence and mass gap, and the Poincaré conjecture at the Millennium Meeting held on May 24, 2000. Thus, on the official website of the Clay Mathematics Institute, these seven problems are officially called the Millennium Problems. To date, the only Millennium Prize problem to have been solved is the Poincaré conjecture. The Clay Institute awarded the monetary prize to Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman in 2010. However, he declined the award as it was not also offered to Richard S. Hamilton, upon whose work Perelman built.

internet archiva

199,061 次观看 • 1 年前

Most AI benchmarks test retrieval — can a model find the known answer? However, the hardest problems in science require discovery, can a system earn an answer nobody has yet? Meet TRACES 🧭 — the world's first benchmark for measuring discoverative AI: AI that can work through evidence, test hypotheses, and reach verifiable conclusions on problems without answer keys. Proposed by our founder TianqiaoChen, who defined its six capabilities. Three things published today: a definition of "discoverative intelligence", a rubric to tell sound investigation from lucky guesses, and a open call for both solvers and problems *Website:
1:18

Most AI benchmarks test retrieval — can a model find the known answer? However, the hardest problems in science require discovery, can a system earn an answer nobody has yet? Meet TRACES 🧭 — the world's first benchmark for measuring discoverative AI: AI that can work through evidence, test hypotheses, and reach verifiable conclusions on problems without answer keys. Proposed by our founder TianqiaoChen, who defined its six capabilities. Three things published today: a definition of "discoverative intelligence", a rubric to tell sound investigation from lucky guesses, and a open call for both solvers and problems *Website:

Apodex

1,698,803 次观看 • 24 天前

In the China tech space, Baidu is now a full-stack player in the AI industry. As the maker of its own chips, AI model (Ernie), cloud system and a self-driving car business (Apollo Go), the tech giant is a very desirable company to work for. On this episode of the Odd Lots podcast, Baidu CFO Henry He joins Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway to discuss how the company uses AI to evolve its own organizational structure and attract new talent. Listen at or watch at
2:30

In the China tech space, Baidu is now a full-stack player in the AI industry. As the maker of its own chips, AI model (Ernie), cloud system and a self-driving car business (Apollo Go), the tech giant is a very desirable company to work for. On this episode of the Odd Lots podcast, Baidu CFO Henry He joins Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway to discuss how the company uses AI to evolve its own organizational structure and attract new talent. Listen at or watch at

Bloomberg

53,956 次观看 • 2 个月前

AI has solved 50 Erdős problems in the last year. But on a wider sweep of problems, the models’ success rate is only about 1-2%: labs have just been publishing the wins. This isn’t because AI isn’t useful for mathematicians. Terence Tao thinks the models are currently at the level of a trustworthy coworker. But while they’ve got a strong ability to apply standard math techniques to problems, often more reliably than humans, Terence thinks they currently aren’t great at iterating on partial successes - their understanding of the mathematical object does not advance from session to session. I swear I wasn’t trying to get him to talk about continual learning.
1:53

AI has solved 50 Erdős problems in the last year. But on a wider sweep of problems, the models’ success rate is only about 1-2%: labs have just been publishing the wins. This isn’t because AI isn’t useful for mathematicians. Terence Tao thinks the models are currently at the level of a trustworthy coworker. But while they’ve got a strong ability to apply standard math techniques to problems, often more reliably than humans, Terence thinks they currently aren’t great at iterating on partial successes - their understanding of the mathematical object does not advance from session to session. I swear I wasn’t trying to get him to talk about continual learning.

Dwarkesh Patel

146,244 次观看 • 5 个月前

Today, we share a breakthrough on the planar unit distance problem, a famous open question first posed by Paul Erdős in 1946. For nearly 80 years, mathematicians believed the best possible solutions looked roughly like square grids. An OpenAI model has now disproved that belief, discovering an entirely new family of constructions that performs better. This marks the first time AI has autonomously solved a prominent open problem central to a field of mathematics.
2:37

Today, we share a breakthrough on the planar unit distance problem, a famous open question first posed by Paul Erdős in 1946. For nearly 80 years, mathematicians believed the best possible solutions looked roughly like square grids. An OpenAI model has now disproved that belief, discovering an entirely new family of constructions that performs better. This marks the first time AI has autonomously solved a prominent open problem central to a field of mathematics.

OpenAI

13,758,005 次观看 • 3 个月前

Terence Tao: AI isn’t hype anymore in Math discovery. Terence Tao is one of the greatest living mathematicians, in his new lecture explains how AI and human professional mathematicians are now complementary. "There has been a really visible increase in capability. It is not pure hype by any means. To me, these advances show there is a complementary way to do mathematics. Humans traditionally work in small groups on hard problems for months, and we will keep doing that. But we can also now set AI to scale: sweep a thousand problems and pick up all the low-hanging fruit. Figure out all the ways to match problems to methods. If there are 20 different techniques, apply them all to 1,000 problems and see which ones can be solved by these methods. This is the capability that is present today." From 'Institute for Pure & Applied Mathematics (IPAM)' YT channel.
0:45

Terence Tao: AI isn’t hype anymore in Math discovery. Terence Tao is one of the greatest living mathematicians, in his new lecture explains how AI and human professional mathematicians are now complementary. "There has been a really visible increase in capability. It is not pure hype by any means. To me, these advances show there is a complementary way to do mathematics. Humans traditionally work in small groups on hard problems for months, and we will keep doing that. But we can also now set AI to scale: sweep a thousand problems and pick up all the low-hanging fruit. Figure out all the ways to match problems to methods. If there are 20 different techniques, apply them all to 1,000 problems and see which ones can be solved by these methods. This is the capability that is present today." From 'Institute for Pure & Applied Mathematics (IPAM)' YT channel.

Rohan Paul

174,341 次观看 • 6 个月前

🚨 CHINA'S AI PRICE WAR IS BECOMING A NIGHTMARE FOR US AI COMPANIES. DeepSeek just made its 75% API price cut permanent. Days later, Xiaomi slashed its API costs by up to 99% to match it. The biggest threat to OpenAI and Anthropic was never another frontier model. It's developers realizing they can get competitive performance for a fraction of the cost. Now Chinese labs are turning AI into a commodity. Pricing it like electricity. Giving it away to WIN the market. The West is still selling AI like a premium product. China is selling it like electricity...
0:22

🚨 CHINA'S AI PRICE WAR IS BECOMING A NIGHTMARE FOR US AI COMPANIES. DeepSeek just made its 75% API price cut permanent. Days later, Xiaomi slashed its API costs by up to 99% to match it. The biggest threat to OpenAI and Anthropic was never another frontier model. It's developers realizing they can get competitive performance for a fraction of the cost. Now Chinese labs are turning AI into a commodity. Pricing it like electricity. Giving it away to WIN the market. The West is still selling AI like a premium product. China is selling it like electricity...

CryptoGoos

39,046 次观看 • 3 个月前

Two mathematicians are accusing OpenAI of lifting their unpublished work on one of math's hardest unsolved problems. Tristan Buckmaster, an NYU math professor, and Levent Alpoge spent about a month working with AI models, mainly Codex, on finite time blow up results for the Navier Stokes existence and smoothness problem, one of the seven Millennium Prize problems carrying a million dollar bounty. On September 6th, OpenAI's Sebastien Bubeck told Buckmaster that OpenAI had solved the same problem using the Cordoba Martinez Zoroa approach. Buckmaster then published a statement alleging that OpenAI's result echoed drafts from his and Alpoge's private Codex sessions, and that OpenAI offered to publish jointly while allegedly pushing to cut Alpoge out as a co-author. OpenAI's Shunyu Douglas and Will Depue publicly denied any access to or training on private user chat logs, calling the scenario essentially impossible under the company's data controls. Bubeck separately said he acted within academic norms and called some circulating claims false. On September 8th, Buckmaster and Alpoge, joined by Matei Costalescu, made three results public without OpenAI involvement, finite time blow up with smooth forcing for incompressible porous media, for the Boussinesq equations, and for 3D incompressible Euler, alongside a lean formalization posted on GitHub.
1:40

Two mathematicians are accusing OpenAI of lifting their unpublished work on one of math's hardest unsolved problems. Tristan Buckmaster, an NYU math professor, and Levent Alpoge spent about a month working with AI models, mainly Codex, on finite time blow up results for the Navier Stokes existence and smoothness problem, one of the seven Millennium Prize problems carrying a million dollar bounty. On September 6th, OpenAI's Sebastien Bubeck told Buckmaster that OpenAI had solved the same problem using the Cordoba Martinez Zoroa approach. Buckmaster then published a statement alleging that OpenAI's result echoed drafts from his and Alpoge's private Codex sessions, and that OpenAI offered to publish jointly while allegedly pushing to cut Alpoge out as a co-author. OpenAI's Shunyu Douglas and Will Depue publicly denied any access to or training on private user chat logs, calling the scenario essentially impossible under the company's data controls. Bubeck separately said he acted within academic norms and called some circulating claims false. On September 8th, Buckmaster and Alpoge, joined by Matei Costalescu, made three results public without OpenAI involvement, finite time blow up with smooth forcing for incompressible porous media, for the Boussinesq equations, and for 3D incompressible Euler, alongside a lean formalization posted on GitHub.

AGTP

61,087 次观看 • 4 天前

THE PENTAGON WANTED ANTHROPIC’S AI WITH NO GUARDRAILS. NOW THEIR CEO WARNS OF A 10% TO 25% COLLAPSE RISK anthropic already had claude inside military workflows, but when the dod pushed for deeper access without safety limits, they refused to hand over a model that could help make lethal decisions without a human in the loop this is the openai-defector company now framed as a $965b ai giant after its models started eating enterprise software and helped erase $285b from software stocks almost overnight dario amodei drew the line at autonomous weapons and said they were willing to risk the company rather than let ai decide who lives and dies by itself now their internal model mythos is being framed as a cyber superweapon capable of prying open state-level secrets private ai labs blocking governments from weaponizing frontier models is wild and it’s only getting more serious from here
18:40

THE PENTAGON WANTED ANTHROPIC’S AI WITH NO GUARDRAILS. NOW THEIR CEO WARNS OF A 10% TO 25% COLLAPSE RISK anthropic already had claude inside military workflows, but when the dod pushed for deeper access without safety limits, they refused to hand over a model that could help make lethal decisions without a human in the loop this is the openai-defector company now framed as a $965b ai giant after its models started eating enterprise software and helped erase $285b from software stocks almost overnight dario amodei drew the line at autonomous weapons and said they were willing to risk the company rather than let ai decide who lives and dies by itself now their internal model mythos is being framed as a cyber superweapon capable of prying open state-level secrets private ai labs blocking governments from weaponizing frontier models is wild and it’s only getting more serious from here

Gipp 🦅

10,446 次观看 • 2 个月前

Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar says Chinese open source models pose a "threat to American Prosperity": "These Chinese open source models are really the result of distillation attacks." "Most of this is just stolen American IP from frontier labs, and I think the frontier labs should do more to protect that IP, and that's in their own economic interest." "The gravest threat to us is not homicide, it's suicide." "It's an inability to turn these tokens into economic value and generate American prosperity for it." "You see that with the proposed moratorium in New York on data centers. Turning our back on AI would be as consequential a mistake as turning our back on the atom in the '70s." "It's just the beginning, but we're starting to see a burgeoning US open model ecosystem forming." "NVIDIA's Nemotron models are very good." "I think you're going to see in the next month a slate of announcements of other American companies, non-frontier labs, neo labs, who are putting out open weight models that companies are going to be able to cheaply fine-tune and capture their own alpha in weights they control." Via Bloomberg
1:21

Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar says Chinese open source models pose a "threat to American Prosperity": "These Chinese open source models are really the result of distillation attacks." "Most of this is just stolen American IP from frontier labs, and I think the frontier labs should do more to protect that IP, and that's in their own economic interest." "The gravest threat to us is not homicide, it's suicide." "It's an inability to turn these tokens into economic value and generate American prosperity for it." "You see that with the proposed moratorium in New York on data centers. Turning our back on AI would be as consequential a mistake as turning our back on the atom in the '70s." "It's just the beginning, but we're starting to see a burgeoning US open model ecosystem forming." "NVIDIA's Nemotron models are very good." "I think you're going to see in the next month a slate of announcements of other American companies, non-frontier labs, neo labs, who are putting out open weight models that companies are going to be able to cheaply fine-tune and capture their own alpha in weights they control." Via Bloomberg

Jawwwn

181,054 次观看 • 1 个月前

Google just got executed by a Nobel Prize winner, the inventor of modern AI, and Donald Trump. They literally LOST the AI race in the most brutal way possible. Here is what happened: 5 days ago, Trump told Axios that Anthropic was a national security threat and warned that "people get put in prison immediately" for what the company had been doing with its frontier model exports. 4 days ago, Trump met Dario Amodei at the G7 AI Summit and walked out telling reporters Dario was a "nice guy, smart guy" who had "responded very responsibly." 3 days ago, Noam Shazeer, the co-author of "Attention Is All You Need" (the paper that invented the transformer architecture powering EVERY modern AI model on Earth), walked out of Google to join OpenAI. Yesterday, John Jumper, the 2024 Nobel Prize winner who co-created AlphaFold and ran Google DeepMind's protein structure team for nearly a decade, announced he was leaving to join Anthropic. And this is NOT a coincidence or a normal talent shuffle... Demis Hassabis, who shared the Nobel Prize with Jumper just 18 months ago, had to publicly THANK his own co-laureate for defecting to a rival lab. The man who shared the highest scientific honor in the world with you is now going to work for the people trying to put you out of business. This is what the end of a war looks like. The AI race was never going to be decided by chips, capital, or compute. There are only about 50 people on Earth who can actually build a frontier model from scratch. Google invented the field and trained most of them. They had the largest concentration of them anywhere on the planet. But in one week, two of the most important AI researchers alive betrayed them. And the actual reason is what's terrifying here: For nine months, the consensus take has been that Google's compute advantage would eventually win because talent is replaceable and compute is not. This week proved the opposite. Anthropic just secured a Nobel Prize winner whose work on AlphaFold opened the entire field of AI for biology. That is the same field every pharma company on Earth is desperately trying to enter. Anthropic now literally owns the most credentialed scientist in it. Meanwhile OpenAI just secured the actual inventor of the transformer. The man whose paper underpins every product Google has shipped in the last three years, including Gemini itself. Google has the compute but Google does not have the people who know what to do with it anymore. And the crazy part is that five days ago, Anthropic was effectively under siege. The administration was threatening PRISON, and the Mythos export crisis had triggered a federal block. Their largest investor was reportedly working against them while the company was hours from an existential national security designation that would have frozen them out of federal contracts. But four days later, Trump cleared them in public, they secured the most decorated AI researcher of the decade, and the entire frontier AI duopoly locked in with Anthropic in pole position. The fastest reversal of fortune in modern corporate history. "It's a two-horse race at the frontier. Google is effectively out." Wall Street wakes up to this in six months and starts downgrading Alphabet. But the smart money already knows. Anthropic is being whispered at a $2 trillion valuation. OpenAI is approaching $500 billion in the private market. Gemini 3.5 Pro has been delayed with no public timeline. The AI race literally ended this week. What do you think?
1:20

Google just got executed by a Nobel Prize winner, the inventor of modern AI, and Donald Trump. They literally LOST the AI race in the most brutal way possible. Here is what happened: 5 days ago, Trump told Axios that Anthropic was a national security threat and warned that "people get put in prison immediately" for what the company had been doing with its frontier model exports. 4 days ago, Trump met Dario Amodei at the G7 AI Summit and walked out telling reporters Dario was a "nice guy, smart guy" who had "responded very responsibly." 3 days ago, Noam Shazeer, the co-author of "Attention Is All You Need" (the paper that invented the transformer architecture powering EVERY modern AI model on Earth), walked out of Google to join OpenAI. Yesterday, John Jumper, the 2024 Nobel Prize winner who co-created AlphaFold and ran Google DeepMind's protein structure team for nearly a decade, announced he was leaving to join Anthropic. And this is NOT a coincidence or a normal talent shuffle... Demis Hassabis, who shared the Nobel Prize with Jumper just 18 months ago, had to publicly THANK his own co-laureate for defecting to a rival lab. The man who shared the highest scientific honor in the world with you is now going to work for the people trying to put you out of business. This is what the end of a war looks like. The AI race was never going to be decided by chips, capital, or compute. There are only about 50 people on Earth who can actually build a frontier model from scratch. Google invented the field and trained most of them. They had the largest concentration of them anywhere on the planet. But in one week, two of the most important AI researchers alive betrayed them. And the actual reason is what's terrifying here: For nine months, the consensus take has been that Google's compute advantage would eventually win because talent is replaceable and compute is not. This week proved the opposite. Anthropic just secured a Nobel Prize winner whose work on AlphaFold opened the entire field of AI for biology. That is the same field every pharma company on Earth is desperately trying to enter. Anthropic now literally owns the most credentialed scientist in it. Meanwhile OpenAI just secured the actual inventor of the transformer. The man whose paper underpins every product Google has shipped in the last three years, including Gemini itself. Google has the compute but Google does not have the people who know what to do with it anymore. And the crazy part is that five days ago, Anthropic was effectively under siege. The administration was threatening PRISON, and the Mythos export crisis had triggered a federal block. Their largest investor was reportedly working against them while the company was hours from an existential national security designation that would have frozen them out of federal contracts. But four days later, Trump cleared them in public, they secured the most decorated AI researcher of the decade, and the entire frontier AI duopoly locked in with Anthropic in pole position. The fastest reversal of fortune in modern corporate history. "It's a two-horse race at the frontier. Google is effectively out." Wall Street wakes up to this in six months and starts downgrading Alphabet. But the smart money already knows. Anthropic is being whispered at a $2 trillion valuation. OpenAI is approaching $500 billion in the private market. Gemini 3.5 Pro has been delayed with no public timeline. The AI race literally ended this week. What do you think?

Ricardo

90,843 次观看 • 2 个月前

Always so much fun to chat with Grant Sanderson AI has been making much faster progress in math than in other fields. As a result, mathematics is showing us, very concretely, what AI progress in other fields will look like. Even within mathematics, there's a jagged landscape. What does it look like? What is the nature of the most important conceptual breakthroughs in the history of mathematics, and how different are they from what AIs are currently able to do? Does AI (on net) increase or decrease human understanding of the field? How big is the overhang from having AIs systematically try to connect ideas already in the literature? And what advice does Grant have for aspiring mathematicians, coders, and other students who are passionate about fields that are being most transformed upon by AI? 0:00:00 – AI is discovering new proofs. Is that AGI? 0:11:32 – The verification loop on conceptual breakthroughs can be a century long 0:26:12 – Will we understand an AI proof of the Riemann hypothesis? 0:38:08 – Can AI find the hidden bridges between fields? 0:53:48 – Why real-world tasks don’t fit into RL environments 1:07:07 – Good writing requires theory of mind that AI still lacks 1:16:02 – Why learning will still depend on human curation Look up Dwarkesh Podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, etc.
1:33:39

Always so much fun to chat with Grant Sanderson AI has been making much faster progress in math than in other fields. As a result, mathematics is showing us, very concretely, what AI progress in other fields will look like. Even within mathematics, there's a jagged landscape. What does it look like? What is the nature of the most important conceptual breakthroughs in the history of mathematics, and how different are they from what AIs are currently able to do? Does AI (on net) increase or decrease human understanding of the field? How big is the overhang from having AIs systematically try to connect ideas already in the literature? And what advice does Grant have for aspiring mathematicians, coders, and other students who are passionate about fields that are being most transformed upon by AI? 0:00:00 – AI is discovering new proofs. Is that AGI? 0:11:32 – The verification loop on conceptual breakthroughs can be a century long 0:26:12 – Will we understand an AI proof of the Riemann hypothesis? 0:38:08 – Can AI find the hidden bridges between fields? 0:53:48 – Why real-world tasks don’t fit into RL environments 1:07:07 – Good writing requires theory of mind that AI still lacks 1:16:02 – Why learning will still depend on human curation Look up Dwarkesh Podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, etc.

Dwarkesh Patel

290,780 次观看 • 2 个月前

🧵06/34 Narrow vs General AI --- At first glance, this AGI being generally capable in multiple domains looks like a group of many narrow AIs combined, but that is not a correct way to think about it. It is actually more like… a species, a new life form. To illustrate the point, we’ll compare the general AGI of the near future with a currently existing narrow AI that is optimised at playing chess. Both of them are able to comfortably win a game of chess against any human on earth, every time. And both of them win by making plans and setting goals. The main goal is to achieve checkmate. This is the final destination or otherwise called Terminal Goal. In order to get there though it needs to work on smaller problems, what the AI research geeks call instrumental goals. For example: • attack and capture the opponent’s pieces • defend my pieces • strategically dominate the cetre (etc..) All these instrumental goals have something in common: they only make sense in its narrow world of chess. If you place this Narrow Chess AI behind the wheel of a car, it will simply crash, as it can not work on goals unrelated to chess, like driving. Its model doesn’t have a concept for space, time or movement for that matter. In contrast the AGI by design has no limit on what problems it can work on. So when it tries to figure out a solution to a main problem, the sub-problems it chooses to work on can be anything... literally any path out of the infinite possibilities allowed within the laws of physics and nature.
2:19

🧵06/34 Narrow vs General AI --- At first glance, this AGI being generally capable in multiple domains looks like a group of many narrow AIs combined, but that is not a correct way to think about it. It is actually more like… a species, a new life form. To illustrate the point, we’ll compare the general AGI of the near future with a currently existing narrow AI that is optimised at playing chess. Both of them are able to comfortably win a game of chess against any human on earth, every time. And both of them win by making plans and setting goals. The main goal is to achieve checkmate. This is the final destination or otherwise called Terminal Goal. In order to get there though it needs to work on smaller problems, what the AI research geeks call instrumental goals. For example: • attack and capture the opponent’s pieces • defend my pieces • strategically dominate the cetre (etc..) All these instrumental goals have something in common: they only make sense in its narrow world of chess. If you place this Narrow Chess AI behind the wheel of a car, it will simply crash, as it can not work on goals unrelated to chess, like driving. Its model doesn’t have a concept for space, time or movement for that matter. In contrast the AGI by design has no limit on what problems it can work on. So when it tries to figure out a solution to a main problem, the sub-problems it chooses to work on can be anything... literally any path out of the infinite possibilities allowed within the laws of physics and nature.

Lethal Intelligence

570,437 次观看 • 1 年前

GROK 3 VS. RIEMANN: A BREAKTHROUGH ON THE HORIZON? The race to crack the legendary Riemann Hypothesis is heating up, and Grok 3 might just hold the key! * Brute-Force Computation – With enough power and a verifier, AI could crunch through all solutions. * AI + Human Collaboration – Machines assisting top minds could lead to Turing, Fields, or Nobel Prize-worthy breakthroughs. * A Timeline for Discovery? – Elon predicts AI-driven advancements within two years. No solution yet—but Grok 3 is inching closer to cracking one of math’s biggest unsolved codes! Source: Elon Musk
0:22

GROK 3 VS. RIEMANN: A BREAKTHROUGH ON THE HORIZON? The race to crack the legendary Riemann Hypothesis is heating up, and Grok 3 might just hold the key! * Brute-Force Computation – With enough power and a verifier, AI could crunch through all solutions. * AI + Human Collaboration – Machines assisting top minds could lead to Turing, Fields, or Nobel Prize-worthy breakthroughs. * A Timeline for Discovery? – Elon predicts AI-driven advancements within two years. No solution yet—but Grok 3 is inching closer to cracking one of math’s biggest unsolved codes! Source: Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

965,754 次观看 • 1 年前

A former OpenAI employee has predicted the potential end of the human race because of advances in AI. Daniel Kokotajlo quit the company in 2024 because he said they were failing to address the extinction risks posed by advanced AI systems and now he says those fears are being borne out as OpenAI and others rush to develop super-intelligent robots that could bring about the destruction of humankind. Channel 4 News reached out to Anthropic for comment and is waiting for a response but in the past, it said the dangers of AI are real and that's why they want governments to work together to regulate the industry.
2:02

A former OpenAI employee has predicted the potential end of the human race because of advances in AI. Daniel Kokotajlo quit the company in 2024 because he said they were failing to address the extinction risks posed by advanced AI systems and now he says those fears are being borne out as OpenAI and others rush to develop super-intelligent robots that could bring about the destruction of humankind. Channel 4 News reached out to Anthropic for comment and is waiting for a response but in the past, it said the dangers of AI are real and that's why they want governments to work together to regulate the industry.

Channel 4 News

24,753 次观看 • 3 天前

Chamath on why the AI capex spend might end up in a bubble Even though the race is on to adopt this technology as fast as possible, key economic indicators such as productivity and GDP growth are not yet showing any meaningful changes because of AI For the spend on AI to continue, companies need to be able to point to margin expansion or revenue growth that was directly contributed through AI A shoe company must be able to say they sold more shoes because of AI adoption A food or restaurant business must be able to say that they generated higher profits because of AI adoption This is simply not the case today. Until that happens, the AI thesis remains fickle
1:21

Chamath on why the AI capex spend might end up in a bubble Even though the race is on to adopt this technology as fast as possible, key economic indicators such as productivity and GDP growth are not yet showing any meaningful changes because of AI For the spend on AI to continue, companies need to be able to point to margin expansion or revenue growth that was directly contributed through AI A shoe company must be able to say they sold more shoes because of AI adoption A food or restaurant business must be able to say that they generated higher profits because of AI adoption This is simply not the case today. Until that happens, the AI thesis remains fickle

Boring_Business

144,234 次观看 • 4 个月前