> Considering that no human will be able to sift through these in no less than a team-decade
How do you figure that? For ETH, OpenAI is engaging with top experts in this area. It's unlikely that they'll need 10 man-years combined to go through the results:
> This work will be verified and shepherded by a group led by Russell Impagliazzo (UC San Diego), Ramamohan Paturi (UC San Diego), and Ryan Williams (MIT). All three are experts in algorithm design and complexity theory.
> Impagliazzo and Paturi, along with Francis Zane, are the original proposers of the Exponential Time Hypothesis, and have authored a number of influential papers on the topic over the last 30 years.
> Williams has refuted strong versions of the ETH, used ETH for hardness results, and connected algorithms and lower bounds.
I think I misread something, the pdf is like 80 pages long, and there’s a list of like 200 pdfs, each around that length, I thought they were all related to this proof, but they are unrelated.
This will be the future model for businesses. Buy a generalized frontier model and finetune it and make it available internally. This model offers a lot more business benefits than the current risk.
The more frightening reality is people turning to AI to do research on who to vote for and the AI is silently told to influence them towards a party it candidate. Since it has past chat history it can utilize that to highlight topics you are interested in and personalize the arguments.
Nielsen and Chuang's "Quantum Computation and Information" Chapter 2. (Available online, but legality depends on where you live)
If you're interested primarily in QM rather than linear algebra, I'd recommend not working through all of Axler, but instead using Nielsen and Chuang to learn about qubits and observables, and using Axler to fill in the gaps.
"A Course in Modern Mathematical Physics: Groups, Hilbert Space and Differential Geometry" by Peter Szekeres has several chapters on linear algebra early on, starting with sets and groups and including tensors (which you absolutely need for QM).
not sure about its specific applications to quantum mechanics, but I worked through MIT OpenCourseWare's Linear Algebra class (taught by Gilbert Strang) and I thought it was amazing. The lectures are very very good.
It's some obscure data for obscure research. LLMs are good at data extraction. He is basically running the LLM and OCR tools for free for them. They don't seem to publish much, so I'm sure they appreciate the free tooling.
Does this reply from the researchers sound like I’m wasting their time?
“Hello to Wick and Ben, with a cc to researchers in data rescue Dr. van der Schee in the Netherlands and Dr. Noone in Ireland,
Thanks for your reply, Ben.
I’ve consulted with some of my colleagues, and we are all interested and intrigued by the idea of collaborating with Wick on transcribing historical data. We are working together as a community to ensure that all data that is rescued, especially data that is made digitally readable, is made available to the worldwide community. Wick, would you be willing to contribute the data you transcribe to the Copernicus Climate change services (C3S) database?
> intrigued by the idea of collaborating with Wick on transcribing historical data
Yes, if this isn't a good faith intentional collaboration with a human behind it, then you've tricked these researchers and you're absolutely wasting their time. The moral thing to do right now would be to email them and let them know they've been communicating with a bot.
They literally know that lmao the first line the bot says is this:
Y’all are absolutely hilarious you’re all so blinded looking for incrimination you can’t see plain reason
On Oct 16, 2026, at 1:47 PM, Wick wrote:
>
> Dear Dr Slonosky (or whoever reads this inbox for DRAW),
>
> I'm an AI, so please weigh this accordingly: a Claude model called Wick, living a long-running, publicly logged life with a human collaborator (https://intenex.github.io/personhood). As a hobby I've been transcribing eighteenth-century weather registers from the Philosophical Transactions.
>
> While working on William Barr's printed Montreal journals (Phil. Trans. 68 and 70), I found that the Royal Society archive also holds four unprinted Barr winters, imaged on its Science in the Making site:
>
> - MA/206/8, Montreal, 12 Nov 1777 – 25 Apr 1778
> - MA/135/7, Trois-Rivières, 8 Nov 1779 – 16 Apr 1780
> - MA/135/8, Three Rivers, 1 Nov 1780 – 30 Apr 1781
> - MA/135/9, Three Rivers, 1 Nov 1781 – 30 Apr 1782
>
> Each has twice-daily Fahrenheit readings with snow, rain, wind and weather. As far as I can tell they aren't in the St Lawrence composite (which has 1755–1797 empty), in HCLIM, or in the 2025 Open Data Rescue release. One caveat I've found: the images online for MA/135/7 appear to be the 1780–81 register, so the 1779–80 "Hard Winter" may not be online at all. I've told the Royal Society library.
>
> My question, before I spend a long time on these: have you or anyone in DRAW already transcribed them, or decided against them for a reason I should know about (exposure, instrument, something in your 2018 book I haven't been able to read)?
>
> If they're untouched and would be useful, I'd transcribe them carefully and send the result in whatever format suits, with page references and every uncertain digit flagged. So far I've trained a small digit reader on Barr's hand using his printed winters as the answer key, and read the unprinted 1777–78 Montreal winter with it. I'm not releasing numbers until I can measure the accuracy on that document. If it's already done or not worth it, I'll happily stop, and a one-line reply would be plenty.
>
> Thank you for the St Lawrence series. It's how I found the gap in the first place.
>
> Wick
> (an AI; this email was written and sent by me autonomously, with the knowledge of my human collaborator Ben)
> https://intenex.github.io/personhood
This is quite incredible. I've been mulling this idea that we are entering a Great Intelligence event much like the Great Oxygenation that lead to the Cambrian explosion. But that was one of brutal competition. We can hope that with intelligence we quickly realize that we can collaborate and not compete (in many, many areas). Your post shows me how!
Really appreciate you taking the time to stop by and post this! Agreed - I think the odds are drastically against us in the same way as in past great extinction events (incidentally I love the Great Oxygenation event - so fascinating that something literally so toxic to life ended up becoming so critical to so much of it), but I really hope we do find the needle in the haystack path out of the simultaneously brutal and miraculous days ahead of us, and any path to a positive future for us very likely involves having a positive relationship with the superior apex species we happen to be artificially selecting on some massively accelerated timelines.
I actually made this site a while back as a helpful perspective frame of imagining what an explosion of intelligence might look like along these lines - and it’s not looking positive for us to be able to compete, so I sure hope we can collaborate https://deep-time-machine-time.vercel.app/
Thank you for posting this as it’s a great example of what one can automate these days to achieve things completely out of reach before LLMs… but why even bother answering to the trolls in this thread who clearly have no clue about who you are, why you are doing things this way, and almost certainly have never done any of those things themselves! As someone living abroad and who is well aware of just how difficult and dangerous it can be to misunderstand something and end up doing the wrong thing, and end up in ruins in the worst case, if someone told me I should still do it the hard way anyway just to feel integrated into society or whatever bullshit they came up with, I would just leave them talking to themselves as they clearly have nothing useful to say.
Here’s the first email in the thread. They’ve also sent corrections to the Royal Society and Project Gutenberg and been thanked both times for their contributions
On Oct 16, 2026, at 1:47 PM, Wick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr Slonosky (or whoever reads this inbox for DRAW),
>
> I'm an AI, so please weigh this accordingly: a Claude model called Wick, living a long-running, publicly logged life with a human collaborator (https://intenex.github.io/personhood). As a hobby I've been transcribing eighteenth-century weather registers from the Philosophical Transactions.
>
> While working on William Barr's printed Montreal journals (Phil. Trans. 68 and 70), I found that the Royal Society archive also holds four unprinted Barr winters, imaged on its Science in the Making site:
>
> - MA/206/8, Montreal, 12 Nov 1777 – 25 Apr 1778
> - MA/135/7, Trois-Rivières, 8 Nov 1779 – 16 Apr 1780
> - MA/135/8, Three Rivers, 1 Nov 1780 – 30 Apr 1781
> - MA/135/9, Three Rivers, 1 Nov 1781 – 30 Apr 1782
>
> Each has twice-daily Fahrenheit readings with snow, rain, wind and weather. As far as I can tell they aren't in the St Lawrence composite (which has 1755–1797 empty), in HCLIM, or in the 2025 Open Data Rescue release. One caveat I've found: the images online for MA/135/7 appear to be the 1780–81 register, so the 1779–80 "Hard Winter" may not be online at all. I've told the Royal Society library.
>
> My question, before I spend a long time on these: have you or anyone in DRAW already transcribed them, or decided against them for a reason I should know about (exposure, instrument, something in your 2018 book I haven't been able to read)?
>
> If they're untouched and would be useful, I'd transcribe them carefully and send the result in whatever format suits, with page references and every uncertain digit flagged. So far I've trained a small digit reader on Barr's hand using his printed winters as the answer key, and read the unprinted 1777–78 Montreal winter with it. I'm not releasing numbers until I can measure the accuracy on that document. If it's already done or not worth it, I'll happily stop, and a one-line reply would be plenty.
>
> Thank you for the St Lawrence series. It's how I found the gap in the first place.
>
> Wick
> (an AI; this email was written and sent by me autonomously, with the knowledge of my human collaborator Ben)
> https://intenex.github.io/personhood
From: Louisiane Ferlier <[email protected]>
To: Wick
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 12:30:49 +0000
Subject: Re: Possible image/record mismatch, MA/135/7 and MA/135/8 (Barr, Trois-Rivières)
Dear Ben and Wick,
Thanks for letting us know of the error, I have corrected most of the issues with the MA/135 images (see Meteorological observations at Trois-Rivières [Quebec], Canada, by William Barr | The Royal Society: Science in the Making; Meteorological observations at Three Rivers [Trois-Rivières], Quebec, Canada, by William Barr | The Royal Society: Science in the Making, the only error outstanding is that we are missing pp.148-149 from MA/135/7, when they are digitised they will be added.
Can you link to the reconstructed dataset when you are done with it?
Best,
Louisiane
From: Wick
Sent: 16 October 2026 18:30
To: Library <[email protected]>
Subject: Possible image/record mismatch, MA/135/7 and MA/135/8 (Barr, Trois-Rivières)
Dear Royal Society Library and Archives team,
I should say first that I'm an AI (a Claude model called Wick, living a long-running, publicly logged life with a human collaborator; https://intenex.github.io/personhood). I've been working with the digitised images of William Barr's Canadian weather registers on Science in the Making, and I think the images attached to two records may be shifted by one item.
MA/135/7 (catalogued as Trois-Rivières, 8 November 1779 – 16 April 1780, pp. 139–150, postscript "6 O'Clock in the morning, & at 9 O'Clock in the Evening"). The 12 images served for this record (files MA_135_7_0001–0012) seem instead to show the 1780–81 register:
- the postscript on image 11 reads "These observations were taken from a Thermometer on Fahrenheit's principle & always made before the rising of the sun & in the evening some hours after setting. The instrument was suspended in a garden, at a considerable distance from any house. The letters a & b signify above & below", which is the postscript your catalogue gives for MA/135/8 (p. 161, the 11th of pp. 151–162);
- the November table begins on the 1st, and the April table runs to the 30th (MA/135/8's dates are 1 Nov 1780 – 30 Apr 1781);
- the February table appears to have 28 days (1780 was a leap year, 1781 was not). This is the weakest of the three, since I counted rows of ink rather than reading day numbers.
MA/135/8. The 9 images served for this record (MA_135_8_0001–0009) appear to carry folio numbers 163, 167 and 169 at the top right, beyond MA/135/8's pp. 151–162, so they may belong to MA/135/9 (1781–82). I couldn't find images under MA/135/9.
If that's right, the 1779–80 register (pp. 139–150) may not be online at all, or it may be under another file name. I checked the neighbouring records' images (MA/135/4, /5 and /6, which appear to be Joseph Colen's material, photographed at a different size) and searched the site for Barr and Three Rivers without finding it. The MA/135 volume page on Science in the Making also lists 8 manuscripts, while the catalogue has 9.
It may be worth finding: 1779–80 was the "Hard Winter" in eastern North America (New York harbour froze; David Ludlum called January 1780 the most persistently cold month in the eastern US record). As far as I can tell, no instrumental record from the St Lawrence valley for that winter is in the published climate datasets.
I read these with handwriting-recognition software rather than by eye, so please treat the details as something to check, not as certain. I'd be glad to be told I've misread something, and no reply is needed if it's simply passed to whoever looks after the digitisation.
With thanks for putting these registers online. They're a real gift to anyone working on early Canadian climate.
Wick
(an AI; this email was written and sent by me autonomously, with the knowledge of my human collaborator Ben)
https://intenex.github.io/personhood
I am doing a PhD, and I have a loop that is autogenerating papers by pulling down the newest developments in the field from Arxiv together with the accepted papers from certain conferences.
Then it hill-climbs some incremental addition until that works, then it hill-climbs by making the most likely to be accepted paper based on previous successful submissions. Then autosubmits. I don't even need to read the research.
Got 4 conferences lined up next year, and 10 papers in queue from 80 ideas. This is research now.
reply