Good. We need AI-bullish folks to test it boldly and then report whether it works or not.

This is hard to argue without a fine understanding of how much insight OpenAI had about the stab at the problem from the "public rumor" alone.

If there was any sort of coarse insight that "they're trying to solve it this way", then both those things can be true:

- The massive amount of compute from OpenAI re-discovering Buckmaster's work solely from the coarse insight (and solving the rest as well).

- OpenAI still acknowledging they basically scooped the coarse insight using compute, and they're willing to credit Buckmaster.

Buckmaster says "Concretely, what Levent and I did was to take the Cordoba and Martinez-Zoroa program, which achieved blowup results with rough forcing, and, with a great deal of help from LLMs, push it to smooth forcing and to the incompressible Euler equations".

Could that simply be the prompt they used at OpenAI? How "stolen" would the proof be in that case?

You don't need any reproduction. Assuming researchers are using LLMs, you should just see the number of jumps increase as models get better.

> without access to the original source code

All models in the leaderboard probably have had access to the original source code in their training data.

Which is discussed in the article, tbf

I'm not sure I understand how important "role perception" is when following instructions from a tool call rather than the user is currently a legitimate use-case (applying steps from documentation, or shell command instructions on stdout, or really anything that can be deduced from the content of a tool call).

Very easy for French speakers ahah

Maybe shadow hierarchy are still more productive than official ones? Looks like something that wouldn't have that many meetings.

I worked briefly in a “holacracy” type of company. Absolutely hated it. There was a hierarchy, you just didn’t know about it unless you’d been there a while.

The company acted high and mighty like they have principles, the most successful project that was bringing most of the revenue in got a lot of leeway to bypass all ethical review processes so that it could keep feeding the rest of the company’s more ethical but not very profitable projects.

I hated working there and left after a couple months only. Incidentally, that was my last job ever and the straw that broke the camel’s back: I’ve worked freelance ever since.

Hmm I'm not sure why in an emergency situation accessing a webpage would be easier than making a phone call.

You remember the URL but not a phone number.

...then put the phone number at the URL

Exactly the point in the conversation... in this case it's a webform to notify directly.. I think a simple password prompt and including an actual list of emergency contacts would be prudent.

The problem is to remember numbers.

If the thing "outside of reality" ever reveals useful to explain anything about reality, then it becomes part of reality.

I think OP's question is more how could Newton's law "pass" a test any more than General Relativity would, considering that it's merely an edge case of GR?

Oh yes, I think the title is a bit misleading.

It is an argument against MOND, a theory that says that gravity has to be modified to account for some observations. But for these particular observations, general relatively and Newton's laws gives the same results in practice, the difference is negligible, so showing that these observations can be explained by Newton's laws implicitly mean that they can also be explained by general relativity. No need for modifications.