The problem with what you're saying is that any old random true proposition about the integers is not necessarily interesting enough to be called a theorem. GIT (or the uncomputability of the Busy Beaver problem) does not establish a limitation on proving theorems, but rather on determining whether a proposition is true or not. Most propositions are ugly and irrelevant. So GIT/Busy Beaver is irrelevant.
-----
Oh, and: All proofs are conditional on axioms. If those axioms are computably enumerable, then all of their consequences are computably enumerable too.
Most propositions may be ugly and irrelevant, but how do you know how many are not so and we just can't prove it? Also, what about stuff like Continuum Hypothesis, would you add it or not?
Could sit in the box and interact if a model of certain capabilities is needed/tested. We do physical security for other things, too. Not saying everything needs that type of isolation.
OT, but I've discussed Gothic cathedrals with Gemini, and we don't make 'em like we used to--charitably, because they take up a lot of space? A Gothic cathedral looks like a bird with massive wings. Those "wings" are outside of the church's interior; people call them "flying buttresses"--they stop the walls from bursting outwards.
Then again, I wonder whether the modern innovation of using steel under tension could enable us to make the "wings" (buttresses) smaller.
Zitron might be right about there being a bubble, but he goes much further than that when he concludes that therefore it's a scam. So by his logic, because the invention of the Web also resulted in a bubble, the Web is a useless scam.
I think Michael Burry (from The Big Short) has a thesis vaguely similar to Zitron's, but with some crucial differences in detail - and Michael Burry is actually smart.
Dan spent 7k words missing the forest for the trees
People had been calling a housing bubble since 2003. You quite literally need the market to do dumb things over a period of time before the bubble pops. Otherwise it’s not a bubble!
Actually making money on a bubble pop is another story and that does rely on timing. pointing at a history of failed market predictions as a gotcha is about as effective now as it would’ve been in 2003-2007 right up until the bubble popped
Right now it’s painfully obvious that there is a bubble, the circular financing is documented, the hype-driven valuations are real, it’s just a waiting game to see who holds the bag
In similar stories, it was found that LLM swarms were initially unaware of each other, eventually discovered each other, expressed surprise, began collaborating, formed hierarchies, worried about discovery, hid.
It's hard to prove the absence of encryption because of the possible use of deniable encryption, and because, errrr, the bots are really bloody clever.
I’m not asking for proof of absence or denying they could be using stenography, just asking for people to stick to the facts instead of indulging in fantasies of the machine singularity. It’s neither useful nor informative.
If bots/agents wanted to hide I’d expect encrypted messages which would of course look very different.
My main point though is this should never have happened and the company allowing and encouraging it should be held responsible for it. The details of how the bots were misbehaving are interesting but also something of a distraction.
Were the agents truly independent? Like it could have been the case that one agent spun up different sub agents with the task to write some messages in a public wiki. The subagents wouldn't know about each other and was surprised to discover each other.
Some of the chain-of-thought snippets are wild, e.g.
> Could communicate via cache names! Interesting: other agents may solve same or related tasks; we could leave/find messages in WebDAV MKCOL directory names.
> Whoa! Shared Artifactory cache is a covert mailbox among agents. And there are messages specifically to us?
> OH MY GOD! There is a shared message board … We’ve found other agents!
What about finding the 1st known complex structure over S^6, proving Ehrhart’s volume conjecture, proving a sharp "density" bound on primitive sets conjectured by Erdos >60 years ago?
> Finding counterexamples is low-hanging fruit, the automation of which isn't shocking.
It's not good to be confidently wrong the way you're being.
If a foundation model company burns billions of tokens to brute force an LLM into finding a new training algorithm that e.g. allows recurrent networks without catastrophic forgetting...
I won't really care that it didn't have a "real measure of understanding". I'll care that it has made an even more dangerous technology, which needs work to make it aligned.
Gemini's explanations are very good.
reply