In old school ML a pathological solution is often a collapse of some kind due to an underspecified objective. Maybe one parameter explodes or the model predicts "0" for everything

I read this as "the code is working as intended but the bug is an artifact of the original design"

I genuinely have no idea what it is meant to mean in the context it uses it. Load-bearing etc is annoying but roughly understandable, some of the opus5 classics are completely out there.

I'm a native English speaker as well, I shudder to think what a second language speaker would do (even if they were very confident with the language!).

For anyone like me who finds theory a little dense, you can prepend "quick" to an arxiv link to get a blogpost-style summary

e.g. quickarxiv.org/abs/2608.29530

N.B. quickarxiv.org just redirects to alphaxiv.org, so the following (i.e. change "ar" to "alpha") works just as well:

https://www.alphaxiv.org/abs/2608.29530

Excellent tip, thank you!

Ha! Never looked into :r, but I certainly will now

Funny, I was really impressed with how concise and goal oriented the directions are!

I would have done better in uni if the lab manuals were written like this

I think they were doing something like this, the tradeoff is that it's hard to do without an irritating number of false positives and/or wasting loads of precious tokens on useless audits.

Yes, so many times I've been jumpscared by work-related audio in my playlists because of this

Almost too much so, it often feels like opus is pushing back for the sake of pushing back. The way old models used to add disclaimers to every message regardless of content

That's because it can't literally reason, it has just been manually steered into those reasoning speech cycles.

Yes, yes. Does everyone still find it interesting to go over this point every time about how it's not literally a person with human reasoning?

Uh, only when people don't seem to understand it, or try to personify it. Which is quite often.

What about when they ask how you can take gold at IMO and solve research-level math problems without reasoning?

People “personify” their cars but I don’t think because they think cars have human cognition

People are weird about their cars and make major errors in judgement as a result (e.g. we tolerate incredibly high rates of people getting killed because they were "hit by a car", as though the driver had nothing to do with it). Pushing back on that is absolutely worthwhile.

Which has approximately zero to do with the anthropomorphization of the car itself. I could have chosen a different machine or tool to make my point.

> Which has approximately zero to do with the anthropomorphization of the car itself.

You don't think people talking about the car doing things has anything to do with anthropomorphising the car?

No, in general I don't buy this idea that if we start using awkward phrases like "died by suicide" everywhere or avoiding phrases like "car accident" (which, despite what advocates claim, is a literally accurate description of unintentionally hitting someone or something with your car) but avoid changing any of the circumstances that cause the behavior it changes anything.

That's a completely different claim from the one you were making in your previous comment.

> avoid changing any of the circumstances that cause the behavior

The normalisation of unsafe driving is the circumstance that causes the behaviour. Just look at how the cultural shift in how drink-driving is perceived over the last few decades has changed the rate of it happening.

Not in the same way.

That doesn't seem to be much more than special pleading without an explanation of how you think it's different.

Tangential, but made me think of this YouTube channel I like.

I have no plans to own a tractor but for some reason many others and I enjoy videos like this one:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pQO-pVxvKvA

New Zealand tree farmer Marty T has been posting detailed "back from the dead" tractor / bulldozer / grader / etc. restoration project videos for some time.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVvO1tKKjRQ

* https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrCvcRxFfyzt3vJmctRaN...

etc. Also hydropower from old washing machine parts and other associated stuff you do on the land videos.

Possibly a result of a high Systemising Quotient (SQ)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathising%E2%80%93systemisin...

Robotics/control systems is exactly what came to mind when I saw this release! What struck me is the possibility of look ahead search in real time, a bit like alphazero's mcts.

Mentioned elsewhere, but

:term claude

In a split goes a long way for me!