Insane. No. Mathematicians will not produce >2 "high SNR" papers per month as their rate calculated over any reasonable time scale; but their maximum per month? Very much the case that they will complete linked papers/dependencies/series of work/etc, spend a month in editing across multiple nearly-complete submissions, and so on.

And in mathematics, at least, priority on results is determined by the first time it appears out in the wild; for most, this is the arXiv.

Nobody is going to accept waiting a month on something that they fear may be scooped, costing them years of work and thought.

This affectively makes the arXiv obsolete for much of the purpose it has heretofore been put to.

Arxiv has had a limit of 3 simultaneous submissions for a couple years now. This is only adding per-month limits.

I find it interesting that we, in the AI community, usually say "Arxiv", where mathematicians seem to say "the Arxiv".

Whereas I would say "Have they put this on Arxiv yet?", mathematicians would say "Have they put this on the Arxiv yet?".

You did not distill Fable. Relevantly, what you did provides no evidence contrary to the parent’s assertion that Moonshot did not have time to distill Fable.

Onlyfans. Arguably, already began long before AI.

> In this blog post I will give my personal view on the recent counterexamples to the unit distance conjecture and sum-product conjecture over the reals (see [90] and [52] respectively). My goal is to sketch the constructions and try and give some intuition as to where they came from and why they work. *My main target audience is the me-of-a-month-ago*

Thomas Bloom is a world-class mathematician working at the frontier of his field. He explicitly did not write this for you, and your stopping reading it is fine.

They should define this, but after having read the entire article I think it’s clear they mean “frameworks for evaluating the output of an agent” rather than what first might come to mind as “LLM evals”.

Their thesis is that even when the eval is useless for correctness of a single agentic action in production, it allows you to choose between two agents by cross-comparing in a large aggregated collection of tasks. Effectively: you can tune your agentic parameters.

Nothing new to the idea that taking many samples and averaging can work when a single datapoint doesn’t. Presumably this is part of a conversation in which we’re lacking context.

Are “frameworks for evaluating the output of an agent” and "LLM evals" different? :) If yes, how?

"LLM evals" is maybe an overused term because it can mean a bunch of things. This article talks about LLM-as-a-judge where an LLM scores another system's outputs.

The poorest of the poor, subsistence farmers are barely producing enough to feed themselves; they trade and barter the little bit they can manage but it is not much and has little impact that goes beyond a tiny village-level radius. Nobody is displacing that because nobody needs to compete with that.

Very commonly governments will displace these poor to build factories or expand large scale farming practices with international development deals. The land gets taken from the poor and they are left with little choice but to work in these new factories often in abusive conditions.

whitepages vs yellowpages

> Mozilla uses the term "vulnerability" for even sec-high, even though they say right below that it doesn't mean the same thing as a practical exploit.

That’s not evident in what you pastedat all.

What you pasted says

> sec-critical and sec-high are assigned to vulnerabilities that can be triggered with normal user behavior […] We make no technical difference between these […] sec-critical bugs are reserved for issues that are publicly disclosed or known to be exploited in the wild.

> sec-low is assigned to bugs that are annoying but far from causing user harm (e.g, a safe crash).

From this one infers that the "180 were sec-high" bugs found are actually exploitsble but known to have been found in the wild, and are NOT mere annoying bugs.

The difference between 180 and 270 does nothing to deflate the signicance, or lack there of, of the implication re: Mythos.

Yes, it is not in what I pasted, as I said, "even though they say right below". If you don't believe me then click on either of the links.

> This also seems like a win for society, if there is some sort of pattern with ai helping with crimes.

That fails to recognize the tradeoff between freedom and security. Society suffers if we, for instance, lock everyone up, despite the reduction that would have in crimes. The balance between the two cannot be ignored to justify outcomes, though it is American tradition to value liberty over security when the two come in conflict.

> it is American tradition to value liberty over security when the two come in conflict.

It is american tradition to yell slogans about freedom while not favoring it at all.

Still very interesting timing to ban third party harnesses, given the proximity to the Claude Code leak …