Agreed. Ehlrich as well. He was a butterfly specialist and applied population theories he used in his own research onto humans. His book was a surprise best seller and made him an intellectual celebrity.
His article is heavy cherry picking and shows little curiosity beyond “you’re dumb I’m smart.”
All pros and cons of LLM coding aside, something has really shifted for me with the latest agentic coding. I’ve found my motivation to work slowly slipping away. No matter what role I had I always found something to keep me engaged with the job. Now though there’s no motivation. Every week it feels like my skills, talents, even ideas themselves are less and less relevant. I’m just meat shuffling data and permissions between bots
You’re just describing the exact situation we’re in but substituting a drone for a rifle. If the government is mad they should just partner with a contractor who is less concerned about this, which lo-and-behold they did it’s a company called OpenAI.
Anthropic isn’t a supply chain risk since they easy found someone else
I think part of the big push to "slow down AI development" is to add some sort of regulatory pressure that will give them sort cover to train less models and slow their burn rates
Are you implying that OpenAI using someones unpublished research without their permission to solve an career defining math problem with their latest model in order to publish first is a problem with the mathematicians?
My read on this document is that people's work isn't being fairly cited more than what does it mean to be a mathematician in this age.
I didn't know this article was about that issue at all. Yeah, if the issue is properly citing work then yes, OpenAI needs to do that. But the article read like it was tackling a completely different issue.
That's one of several issues, obviously a big one, and they do touch on it:
> Often these solutions are announced in a rush, leaving no time for a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous work of others. As in all creative professions, this raises severe attribution and plagiarism questions.
Foldable gimmicks aside the new materials and components sound really cool. How they have the screen layers that move freely seems innovative. The new ceramic they’re using for the outer shell/screen sounds great and I hope we see it in more of their devices:
“Ceramic Shield 2 on the outer display reduces glare and provides 3x better scratch resistance than the previous generation”
This is pseudoscientific AI slop. Pangram is scoring it as 100% AI written. Modern humans originated 300kya, so the idea that oral to written culture could date back 240k years is absurd.
Checking to see if these dates correspond to climatic events only makes sense if the texts imply that. However, this list does not mention climatic events for these kings records. The only climatic event it does mention is the great flood which in their chronology comes after these lists of kings. So why would these writers use dates to some past events and leave out that context? I don't see any scholarly articles suggesting this. Googling for it only brings up this article. It comes across to me as ploy for self promotion rather than anything of value to prehistory.
His article is heavy cherry picking and shows little curiosity beyond “you’re dumb I’m smart.”
reply