Here is a video I came across today that seems relevant to the discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiDqJMxg6o

He is a professor at Imperial College in London.

He says that a potential negative consequence of having AI do the math is that if people stop doing going into math, then there will not be enough people to understand and check the math proofs from AI and to push back against bad proofs.

A few years ago I was at the local Java meetup and the speaker was from Azul Systems. They contribute to OpenJDK, offer support contracts, and I think they used to make a special JDK for embedded systems. He said there is a big sign at one of their offices that said: "We write in C, so you don't have to".

I took enough C to understand what things like the JDK or the Golang runtime are doing for me wrt things like memory management. I do not know a lot about C, or anything about the C compiler, or the assembly, or the chip, or all the layers underneath. But I do know that there are people who do know that.

The point of all that is: What if we wind up in a world where nobody understands how the JDK or other runtimes work anymore? Or if the only people who do use their knowledge to break or take down systems running one of these runtimes? That is where I think things are heading.

We started this decade with doors falling off of airplanes, and a lot of people seemed to think that is a wonderful idea.

I saw a Cybertruck yesterday that was painted bright green. I did not think there was a way to make those things any uglier, but I guess I was wrong.

For a while it looked like devs would resist the slop, but now it looks like the slop is winning. It is pretty depressing. I am thinking about leaving tech altogether.

Now it seems like a lot of meetups are all about AI, and if the topic is not AI, someone brings it up: Can AI do this, did you use AI, etc, etc.

I have looked at a few comment threads about the math proofs on Hacker News. I only got as far as business calculus about 30 years ago, so some of it was beyond me.

I noticed that some commenters have no problem with the fact that a lot of the proofs are almost incomprehensible to humans. I do not see the point of math for AI alone, since I do not think AI is or will ever be conscious.

It is another example of people thinking that our lives should be not just pro-AI, but AI-centric. To them, the AI is not here for us, but we are here to serve the AI.

I hate it when people say, "It's a management/culture problem; you are just not using the AI properly."

If you did not have a particular management problem until the AI came along, then I can say it's an AI problem.

I also tried reading the whitepaper, and could not get past the first page. I just kept thinking, "that's not what happened", and after about four or five times of thinking that, I just bailed.

The big one was that non-reversible transactions are supposed to be cheaper, yet Bitcoin is a lot more expensive than what we have now

How did Lex Fridman's podcast become so popular? He has no affect, always seems like he is about to fall asleep, and most of his guests are horrible people. He is a less intense Joe Rogan.

So far, all of these "model breaches containment" stories have been fake.

But if one actually did, than that would be a signal to drop AI and nuke data centers from orbit.

This is not the genius-level marketing OpenAI thinks it is.

The AI shills would say: Are you still using the models from six months ago? Because the new models are sooo much more powerful.

Here is the first sentence: "You can see the future first in San Francisco. "

I feel like I already know everything I need to know about him.

The discourse about AI is similar to the way people talk about Trump. A lot of us saw them for what they were immediately, and were called alarmist.

And over time, more and more people try to explain that they have changed their mind, and they were fooled, and aren't bad people themselves, something something something.

I am tempted to put "doing the bidding of the Antichrist for over 20 years" on my website. Or maybe even my LinkedIn profile.

The Facebook CTO is one of those fake lt Colonels the DoD commissioned a while back.

This guy was CTO while Facebook/Meta was burning all that money on the Metaverse. Now they are, as Mr Gerard put it, pivoting to AI, and burning millions there. Those Meta stock options must be really good to work for someone as dumb as this guy.

Plus: He went to Harvard. I guess those schools will take anybody.

PL talks about the way Trump fights wars as if it comes out of some military doctrine. It doesn't. Trump is stupid, doesn't plan ahead, and is easily distracted. That's it. It's not N-dimensional chess. He's just an idiot.

In hindsight, it is pretty funny that he called his fund "Situational Awareness" and still lost money.

Maybe someone should start a hedge fund and call it something like, "Maybe This Will All Work Out LLC." That way there is no disappointment.

The authors are part of AI Fight Club. The first rule of AI Fight Club is: Do not consider or suggest not using AI.

“I can’t tell you how many billionaires and CEOs have called me in absolute tears about their lives being destroyed by one article.”

I would pay to see a billionaire or CEO in tears over an article.

And if stopping them were that easy, why hasn't it happened yet?

Over the past two years, having the food companies regulate themselves has not worked out.

I think it's hilarious that his twitter handle has "real" at the front. Who would want to pretend to be that guy?

It is shocking that there are a lot of smart people unable to find work, yet rich people throw money at this guy.