At least here in Scandinavia, the US is quite popular for the most ambitious and driven students that are interested in entrepreneurship. They apply to top US schools on either coasts via exchange programs, or a full degree, exactly because the schools are so close to the startup scene. Imposing a $100k fee to hire those, would effectively make such types of graduates very unattractive to startups.

We need a fake teams / zoom UI with faces talking. You know, for those working in open plan.

But how do they expect to sustain on that?

One natural step of AI usage, the way I see it, is that even mediocre researchers can use AI as a harness to become prolific researchers.

So if you're part of a pure "human only" researchers that publish 1/10th of what the rest are doing, how are you going to survive?

The more prolific researchers will eat your grants for lunch.

This is exactly the same thing a lot of software devs are going through now. AI models have lifted up EVERYONES ability to produce code, so there's simply no premium anymore for those that will only code by hand. And the people paying their salary are asking why they aren't more productive, when even business analyst Joe is pumping out new products left and right.

People will pay good money for artisanal, hand-crafted clothing, or watches, or cars, or whatever, but I doubt that the market for artisanal mathematics is now or will ever be very large.

It's just stubbornness, in the end, that is manifesting as a kind of gatekeeping Luddism. I see the same thing in my Mastodon feed from folks in the software engineering world, particularly people who have a great love for writing code and hold it as a core part of their identities. I understand being irritated at a machine having been trained on (potentially, inter alia) your work with no compensation to you, and now it is perhaps better at (some of) what you do than you are; or maybe companies are now making a lot of money off of something that benefited from your contributions; but I find it extremely improbable that we will be able to refuse our way out of further progress now that so much money has been invested and so much momentum has been gathered.

I don't think I feel any discomfort about a machine being better at anything that I can do than I am at it. Maybe it's because I'm a mediocre person. I personally think that if there's something that I'm better at than a machine, then we need to build a better machine. Imagine what I'd be able to do if I used that machine!

There are many things you are better at than a machine. Giving love for example. I’d bet your dog or a child would rather spend 5 seconds with you than 5 hours with an LLM.

Every single day now, for close to 4 years, ever since ChatGPT 3.5 was released - there's been people dismissing AI progress. Every step of the way.

It is entirely possible that one day progress just stops or slows down, but with current evidence, I don't find that too likely - at least not in the near future. The sheer amount of resources being put into this (AI) race is mind-boggling.

So while past performance does not guarantee future results, I'm just going to kick back, and assume that many of the current issues will be fixed with future models.

The progress is clearly not uniform though, it’s shaped by how amenable things are to collecting data and verifying computation. I think writing clear and cogent prose is harder to quantify than formally verifiable logic, and this is why progress in coherent communication has been slower than raw problem solving ability

Maybe this is just a matter of what model developers choose to invest training resources in, but I don’t think it’s inevitable unless clarity is made a higher priority

Doesn't address my point at all and I did not dismiss AI progress.

Yes it does address your point. Maybe actually read what he wrote.

OP is not dismissing AI progress, they're saying there's been no progress in writing better.

Which is false. Any of the sota models write far better than chstgpt that was released 3 years ago.

I think that would be very difficult to say. Good or bad writing is subjective.

Trump is currently in the phase where he is desperately trying to build a legacy. Hence all the trivial bullshit with monuments, renaming stuff, and what have you. He's terrified that once he's gone, he'll be gone and forgotten. Even said it himself - that if he doesn't do it now, nobody else will when he's gone.

Expect more of this. Wouldn't put it past him if he in Nov 2028 decides to rename a state after himself.

He won't be forgotten. He'll be studied in political science, psychology, criminal studies, history, economics, forever. His legacy will be simply be to join the list of people with narcissistic tendencies that should have never been given power.

> Trump is currently in the phase where he is desperately trying to build a legacy

He probably knows he'll be quickly forgotten once people wake up and stop giving him oxygen. And how sad is it that he still has to work overtime at his age.

Florida absolutely bursting with excitement.

Nobody's going to care to name anything after him once he's gone. For a public figure of his stature, that's an incredible admission of failure. And of knowing he failed.

If only google could use their AI to generate a wiremesh model out of their google maps streetview data, and make it public. And then another model to generate texture.

Not that salary expenses is a big problem for top tech companies, but remote workers don't warrant US west-coast comps either.

> but remote workers don't warrant US west-coast comps either

I mean, we don't really need that west coast comp either? If I was pulling my old FAANG comp here in Spain, I'd be in the top 0.1% of earners...

Sure, who doesn't want unlimited money? That's decidedly different from "needing" it (I could in no way manage to live on the West Coast on a Spanish salary, for example)

Well then why do the people who do earn that much there need it?

Sky-high cost of living (property prices, mostly). Shitty apartment with a commute in the bay costs $3,000/month. Starter home in Seattle costs a million plus.

It's also a vicious cycle: high tech salaries in those areas have driven up the cost of living.

> Shitty apartment with a commute in the bay costs $3,000/month. Starter home in Seattle costs a million plus.

The prices in Madrid/Barcelona are not exactly far off already (through no fault of high tech salaries).

But a high tech salary in that area doesn't put them in the percentile we were discussing.

> But a high tech salary in that area doesn't put them in the percentile we were discussing.

Not on the West coast, no, but my contention is that my comp when I worked for a FAANG in Seattle (5 years ago) would put me well into the top 0.2% of Spanish earners

Hatred of the labor theory of value. This isn't my judgement on it. Just my guess why certain people with certain interests argue against it

One might argue that it should, but as a remote worker in a low cost area I don't mind making 20% less than my NYC/Bay colleagues as I can still live like a king in my midwest city on regionally adjusted swe comp.

And added 6 new ones. Might want to add that to the headline.

Looks like those are new formalizations of existing proofs, not new ones

So a fair headline would be "OpenAI tried formalizing more of their proofs, and found 33% of them had a mistake".

This is what most prestigious white-collar firms also do in the west. Think high finance, management consulting.

If you nail the interview, Goldman Sachs won't really care whether you studied Economics or History of Art at Harvard. The main concern is that you studied at Harvard, which signals that you're a high-performer.