Wow, blatant monopoly behavior

Agree, I backed up Fravia's website back in the day, and it is fun to come back to.

You can still discover it for yourself even if AI discovered it first (or some other human, or an alien on another planet). It is fun to figure out how something works, in and of itself

Absolutely. One of the best pieces of advice my PhD advisor gave me was that to really understand a particular result I would usually have to redo the proof of it myself (even after reading someone else's proof).

that's not nearly as exciting as uncovering something new first yourself, but I agree to some extent. Also that's not something you'll get paid for, it's basically coursework at that point.

Sure, but for most humans except for some on the upper echelons of education and intelligence, discovering something new for the first time was never going to happen anyway.

right but that's why i did a math phd lol! To be part of that group of humans.

That is also not how it works. The theorem says that there exist some true statements for which there is no proof. This is assuming the axioms are consistent.

I think you're right, I'm conflating two separate things.

EDIT: I am wrong (it's been a while) but there is nuance.

I said any computer program fails to prove some true statements. In fact, some 'true' statements cannot be proven by any program, as others have said.

But for those statements G, you can prove 'G is true if our system is consistent', just not 'G is true'.

So when we say G is 'true', we are really just asserting the consistency axiom that our computer program is denied.

Are we supposed to ignore the irony that you typed this on a computer that is millions of times more powerful than the calculators you propose to forfeit?

I'm not sure the world is better if everyone was forced to do TLS handshake math by hand.

The last couple decades of economic development (of the first world at least) was in a large part due to the efficiency gains by not having people do math by hand. The world will definitely not be better if you just blew up all the computing tech since calculators were invented.

I think we should be horrified/outraged that calculators exist and are clear cutting the once viable field of human calculation.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

I think the comment you answered was ironic/sarcastic.

Is it a hallucination machine and a stochastic parrot or is it so powerful we need it to be controlled like nuclear weaponry

If I have a random number generator and I also have the burning desire to connect the random number generator to the nuclear launch system it is both just a random number generator and also I should be tackled to the ground by serious men with sunglasses in black suits and sent to prison.

a hallucination machine on an infinite loop and infinite tokens is a dangerous combination.

Genuinely curious, where have you been reading that? How would they be able to evaluate whether the sandboxes were reasonable or not?

Artifactory is not a hardened piece of software meant for adversarial workloads like the one OpenAI was using it for. This is just common sense. The sandbox they setup was like putting their AI in a jail but allowing it to leave the jail on its own to go to the convenience store.

The most recent DNS sandbox escape is similarly ridiculous.

Lot's of hints in the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI%E2%80%93HuggingFace_inc...

E.g. even the basic thing (block the internet), was not actually properly blocked.

Some comments: https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/22/how-an-openais-human-mista...

Good? Those people were in the field for the wrong reasons. No reason to mourn them leaving

> in the field for the wrong reasons

It’s an interesting view-point. What are the “right reasons” to pursue an intellectual discipline? To selflessly further the total sum of knowledge?

> No reason to mourn them leaving

What field? Who’s leaving?

The conclusion has to be that human involvement in these pursuits is facing existential crisis. “Teach me, oh Oracle, the mysteries of the Universe”. “For a fee”.

Both the glory and joy of discovery now belongs to the machines (the owners of those machines). Perhaps that’s fine and well, but I read Anathem and feel the strong yearning to be the intellectual monk. And yes, to fight and debate and think; and obtain my place in history. The history of man.

"To selflessly further the total sum of knowledge?"

Yes. I think you are saying this sarcastically but I'm not sure... This is why you should get involved in research at the frontier.

"What field? Who’s leaving?"

Mathematics, and I'd extend it to other academic disciplines. Do you care more about the results and the knowledge or about who gets credit?

The drive for "glory" has many negative effects in academia that do not get enough recognition. Just look at the replication crisis in psychology for an example. The fact p-hacking was rampant among psychology "researchers" was well known even in the 90s. I remember my professors in grad school for physics joking about it way before it became a mainstream-ish story.

So why did this happen? Because there was no one with institutional power in psychology who both understood the problem and cared. No one who was interested in the furthering the "total sum of knowledge" rather they were interested in your "glory."

You don't have to ask the machine, if you value the process of obtaining the answer rather than the answer itself.

This seems like an unserious experiment from the premise, but it could be interesting. But has this effect been replicated?

I mean there were problems with the "old way" as well. Not clear if this change is net positive or negative in my opinion.