I get excited at the idea of a world in which advanced mathematical problems (and their solutions) become much more accessible to a much greater number of people. As a result, making mathematics much more loved at a societal level.
Imagine a world where these most complex mathematical problems are not accessible to a few hundred people, but a few hundred thousands people.
...Those original few hundred gifted mathematicians would have an even more prominent role, and their names and achievements would be known by orders of magnitude more people that they are now.
This is the hope, but I suspect the reality is that we see an ever widening gap between the fortunate and the unfortunate. We're looking at the automation and commodification of all knowledge, and the best models will be kept locked behind closed doors so that they can't be stolen. And, of course, "for our own protection".
Based on current reward models, the frontier AI labs will burn down mathematics as an impressive display of capabilities and in doing so, will make it impossible for people that get paid to do mathematics to stay employed.
If your job is literally to publish papers, and OpenAI and Anthropic decide that making an infinite-paper-printing machine is the best thing to show how effective their tech is, then as a demo, they destroy that industry.
I wouldn't expect them to destroy that industry, imagine global squadrons of academics and mathematicians focusing their attention on LLM's, training algorithms, scaling laws, ... they're gonna try and beat the incumbent frontier AI labs, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth
I have noticed this degradation of 5.5 reliability to what, in my experience, I consider Claude-level of reliability since early June.
My journey dealing with this has been transitioning from 5.5 high to 5.5 xhigh to 5.4 high.
5.4 high has been perfectly reliable for me for the last 3 weeks, and I am happy there.
Occasionally, I run some tasks on 5.5 xhigh to check if it has gone back to being 100% perfectly reliable, but, at this point, I am assuming they are just counting on releasing 5.6 rather than dealing with this reliability issue.
I'm on the same journey but I bought a 3090 and put qwen 3.6 27b on it. It covers some things with better reliability. Obviously it doesn't have the breadth of a large model. If that's even a selling point for large models for coding?
It is somewhat different: in your example, it’s just a matter of the taxation rate.
In Norway, it seems they were taxing paper gains: as an entrepreneur you take all the risk and put the effort to make your company succeed, maybe work with the smallest salary you can, so as to help your company grow more… then they come and say: “well on paper, if hypothetically you were to sell your company now, it would be worth X, so we are going to tax you on that.”
…now to pay taxes you have to sell a chunk of your company, or find other ways to fund your tax bill, which is probably going to take away resources from growing your company, which probably means your company’s will grow less and hire less…
By the by, one of the people specifically pointed out in this article was apparently paying a total tax bill of 17 million dollars against a net worth of 2 billion, and whatever tiny increase in taxes he would've ended up paying was enough to make him flee the country.
If you can't bear to pay back even a tiny, tiny fraction of what you've been given then you shouldn't have it at all.
The people who are fleeing the country aren't just fleeing a specific rate of taxation. They are fleeing the idea that their wealth was, as you put it, simply given to them.
They are fleeing from people like you.
I blame the rich people a little bit for leaving. My fight or flight reflexes learn more towards the side of fight.
Money is earned when you lift crates for an hour and get $10 for it. 2 billion? Well, I can't imagine how many crates you'd have to lift to actually *earn* something like that.
Corporations are only allowed to exist with consent of the public. Break the social contract and get fucked at your own peril.
I love basketball, soccer, and tennis… but you guys have no idea how powerful I have found to share stories like this with my young kids.
Yes, I want them to excel in sports, but these articles provide a crucial counterweight to the all-too-common narrative that becoming a pro athlete is the ultimate dream. Instead, these stories show that being exceptional in STEM isn’t just something you do because you are curious, you find it interesting, you enjoy it (all great motivators), or to please parents and teachers (generally, probably, lesser quality motivators): these stories show that being exceptional in STEM can open doors to exciting, high-impact careers.
It’s been amazing to watch my kids begin to reframe STEM not as the “sensible” thing to do, but as something genuinely cool, aspirational, and full of opportunity.
> remember how they mentioned they built multiple Codex prototypes, it must've sucked to see some other people's version chosen instead of your own
Well it depends on people’s mindset. It’s like doing a hackathon and not winning.
Most people still leave inspired by what they have seen other people building, and can’t wait to do it again.
…but of course not everybody likes to go to hackathons
> OpenAI is perhaps the most frighteningly ambitious org I've ever seen.
That kind of ambition feels like the result of Bill Gates pushing Altman to the limit and Altman rising to the challenge. The famous "Gates demo" during the GPT‑2 days comes to mind.
Having said that, the entire article reads more like a puff piece than an honest reflection.
Uhm. This seems more of a case of slow and expensive, can we at least hope it’s good?
The plane was initially commissioned in 2018:
- originally planned for delivery in 2024, the first aircraft’s timeline has now slipped to at least 2029, with further delays possible;
- The fixed-price contract negotiated under the (first!) Trump administration capped costs at $3.9 billion, but Boeing is already $2.5 billion over budget
Can you guys explain what this would be bad for the OpenAI and Anthropic of the world?
Wasn't the story always outlined to be we build better and better models, then we eventually get to AGI, AGI works on building better and better models even faster, and we eventually get to super AGI, which can work on building better and better models even faster...
Isn't "super-optimization"(in the widest sense) what we expect to happen in the long run?
First of all, we need to just stop talking about AGI and Superintelligence. It's a total distraction from the actual value that has already been created by AI/ML over the years and will continue to be created.
That said, you have to distinguish between "good for the field of AI, the AI industry overall, and users of AI" from "good for a couple of companies that want to be the sole provider of SOTA models and extract maximum value from everyone else to drive their own equity valuations to the moon". Deepseek is positive for the former and negative for the latter.
I believe in general the business model of building frontier models has not been fully baked out yet. Lets ignore the thought of AGI and just say models do continue to improve. In OpenAIs case they have raised lots of capital in the hopes of dominating the market. That capital pegged them at a valuation. Now you have a company with ~100 employees and supposedly a lot less capital come in a get close to OpenAIs current leading model. It has the potential to pop their balloon massively.
By releasing a lot of it opensource everyone has their hands on it. Opens the door to new companies.
Or a simple mental model, there has been this ability for third parties to get quite close to leading frontier models. The leading frontier models takes hundreds of millions of dollars and if someone is able to copy it within a years time for significantly less capital, its going to be hard game of cat and mouse.
For years, I was an Apple Watch user: I assumed that all medium/top end trackers were the same, and that Apple Watch was pretty much the benchmark.
…but now that is have had the opportunity to use extensively Garmin watches, my experience is that they offer far superior accuracy, precision and technical details for activity tracking and sleeping than Apple Watch.
My picks would be in the following order:
1) Garmin high-end watches, they are truly a work of love
2) Aura ring, because of great convenience and reliability
3) Apple Watch, because they are great all-rounders
4) Coros, Suunto, Whoops, because they are highly reliable, but lack some of the smart functions
5) Withings, Fitbit, etc…, they are a solid option, but they generally lack distinctive features/capabilities
I would stay away from any brands offering super cheap products, due to privacy concerns and lower reliability and lack of advanced features.
I would love to hear more about your opinions on this as someone who has been experimenting with as a semi-serious runner after years of being Apple Watch exclusive.
What I see is benefits around battery life, form factor (buttons are awesome), and good native support for "compound metrics" like Endurance Score, Hill Score, Training Status, etc.
But when it comes to actual stats and metrics, Apple Watch feels superior in most ways. Garmin sleep tracking anecdotally feels much less accurate. It baffles me that it only shows pace to the nearest 5 seconds during a workout. It confuses me that it only shows a Vo2max estimate to zero decimal places.
Then, Apple Watch is at least 10x more customizable via third party apps. Want a Whoop-like experience with strain score, recovery score, etc.? Bevel and Athlytic are there. Want a much more in-depth and customizable workout experience? WorkOutdoors puts Garmin to shame here.
What am I missing that makes Garmin so pervasive, while Apple Watch is derided as "not a serious sports watch"?
I'm hardly a serious runner, but I'd say the pros you laid out for Garmin are quite nice, and the cons are inconsequential to your average fitness tracker user. I'd probably argue they're inconsequential to everyone but the absolute elite and, for them, are pointless.
Sleep tracking is hard to action on for the average user outside "you slept this long" and none of the writst-based devices are that good anyway.
Pace to sub 5 is a little more annoying, but probably not useful for the majority considering most people are just running, not craning over their watch the whole time.
VO2 max is also a wild estimate, and I'd hazard it's not particularly accurate for the average person. It's off by close to 20% for me, and I should be a pretty good candidate.
On the flipside, you can get tons of data out of a Garmin that costs significantly less than an Apple watch. Plus, the majority of Garmins sold are fitness devices with some smart features, with Apple watches being primarily a smart watch. While maybe not justified (I think the Apple watch features are quite nice) I'd expect that's a major part of the reason Garmin has the rep it does.
If someone is buying a device to run, most would recommend the cheaper, light, simple, specialized, long battery life watch over the opposite. If you already have an Apple watch, it's probably a no brainer.
For the high-end Garmin devices, it's a little more complex, but not many people are considering a US$800+ device without knowing the nuances of the discussion, or having enough money to not care.
I do think the pace having more granularity than five seconds is important for anyone who's doing any kind of speed work, where a pace off by 5 seconds can result in a fairly significant variance. Admittedly I am not a total novice, but my 5k and 10k pace times are about 10 seconds apart, and I do some interval workouts at 5k pace and some at 10k pace. 5 second granularity doesn't give much wiggle room there! Although of course, GPS and cadence-based paces are also estimates, so maybe the 5 second accuracy is better than 1 second which could inpsire a false sense of confidence in the estimate.
As far as Vo2Max goes, totally agree – my lab test results vary widely from both watches. However, I think that actually makes Apple's 1 decimal place more significant – it has a lot of value in offering a fitness trend, even if it's inaccurate. I might train hard for 3 weeks and see 0 movement in my Garmin Vo2Max, whereas I might see a 0.3 increase in the Apple Watch. This is valuable for even the novice runner.
I feel the important piece to remember with VO2Max estimation is: Its an estimation. Its significant figures [1]; reporting the value to one or more decimal places communicates a level of confidence inappropriate for how inaccurate these estimations generally are. Especially the Apple Watch's; Garmin's is known for being pretty decent, usually +/- 2, but Apple Watch's is all over the place and is infamous for being really inaccurate.
Clamping pace to 5 seconds is a similar idea. GPS isn't super accurate: within 16 feet some sources say [2], though it gets better if you've got dual band, if you're moving; but it gets worse when you don't have an open sky. Just ten feet of GPS inaccuracy over a ten minute mile means your recorded pace is somewhere between 9:58/mile to 10:02/mile. And, experimentally, these systems are way, way more inaccurate than that: on a recent bike ride, with no major sky obstructions, I wore both an Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Garmin Enduro 3; the AWU2 recorded 25.05 miles, Enduro 3 recorded 25.18 miles. That's a difference of ~686 feet; ~27 feet/mile.
That's very true, and I'd love to see some actual documentation on how they get to pace numbers.
I'm in the same boat with regard to 5K/10K pace, but I reckon it's probably not a huge issue in the long run. While plans specify those times, I think it's more about shorthand for effort zone where 5K is "this hard" and 10K is "a little bit less hard".
VO2 max improvement is a good point, though, and I'd probably agree. If I had a hazard a guess, Garmin would say that their training productivity tracker/race estimated are the preferred way of presenting that data. as an aside, I think VO2max has sorta been coopted as a "fitness number" when it actually represents a very specific thing that may or may not be emblematic of actual performance in the majority of cases. It is nice to have a a single value to look at that can sum up whether what you've been doing lately is productive, though.
That could just be me coming from the world of cycling where watts are king and there's far less variability. In my mind, all these running stats are mushy, but that might not actually be the case.
If vo2max is displayed without decimals it would take months to see progress for most people starting running. It’s baffling that they would make such a mistake.
I was considering a Garmin watch, but if they make such a stupid decision regarding vo2max then what other mistakes are lurking in their apps?
IMO the biggest reason why the Apple Watch is oftentimes interpreted as an "unserious" exercise smartwatch is actually quite simple: The display & lack of physical buttons makes it difficult to interface with in the variety of conditions that outdoor activity enthusiasts often find themselves in. If its bright out, the mps displays on many Garmins will outperform OLED. If its raining; good luck using a touchscreen. If you're wearing gloves; ditto. If you've just ran a marathon, you're dying, your vision is blurry, you're sweaty and collapsing, that "swipe over a screen then click the end workout button" workflow is the end of the world; it wasn't designed by someone who has ever been in that situation, its designed for and by people who take their nice little walks to the cute little grocery story.
Battery is another less major factor: Even the AW Ultra 2 struggles to make it through a full marathon run (~70-90% battery usage IME) and that's not an uncommon-enough situation for users of the quote"ULTRA"endquote to be an invalid criticism.
Nothing else matters. Your comment continues into talking about sleep tracking and recovery scores and strain scores and third party apps and literally none of that matters. That's silicon valley brain stuff that many customers don't care about. The Apple Watch is, to some people, a Bugatti without a steering wheel; it gets a lot of the basics wrong.
One note though: Many Garmin users would also say that Garmin is, sadly, also losing track of what their core userbase wants, as the experience has become more buggy and less focused over the years. I'm not asserting that Garmin is king and Apple are idiots; Garmin just has momentum and is generally great at the things its users care about.
I actually can't imagine what it will do for video gaming. Maybe enhancing cut-scenes, but then why can't they just do the performance and rendering using the gaming engine in realtime?
Perhaps AI will help with procedural generation of environmental details within a pre-built game world. This way the AI isn't burdened with generating the whole scene, but only the clutter of objects and textures - things that usually take a long time to build by hand.
For example in Train or Truck Simulators, I see examples where someone has put effort into making that farmhouse in the distance nicely detailed, but other times it's just a simple structure. If AI were tasked with "distant details", the whole game could look more polished.
Imagine a world where these most complex mathematical problems are not accessible to a few hundred people, but a few hundred thousands people. ...Those original few hundred gifted mathematicians would have an even more prominent role, and their names and achievements would be known by orders of magnitude more people that they are now.
reply