Are they as good as opus 5.5? No.

Are they about on par with opus 4.6? Yes.

The long run tasks i run seem to be about the same level of quality, though there are obvious differences in model styles, token budgets, etc....

If you live anywhere in the developed world, and you are reasonably able bodied, you can certainly save sufficient money for your long term needs.

there is maybe 1% of the population who can't do it, for everyone else it's a choice.

Fundamentally the main points being made seem to boil down to this excerpt from Tristan Humbert:

>Open AI claimed a proof of the conjecture in full generality this morning and my first impression was sadness to see my favorite problem get “killed” by AI ; it is definitely easier to ignore a problem when it does not affect you directly. Next, I felt stressed because I am currently applying for postdocs and more of my research plan was now obsolete and I spent the whole morning rewriting everything and sending emails to my advisors in panic. Finally, I felt anger after opening the paper and observing that it was mostly unreadable slop.

They're essentially angry at "They did before i could", and "Now i don't have a job" and "I dislike how it is written".

It just reinforces the "scientific priesthood" theme.

These are people who had their livelihoods and status derived from this thing which is now fundamentally obsolete, and they are scared and upset that they will no longer have those things.

That's fine, its a normal human reaction. God knows i'm not sure i will have a job in 5 years because of AI!

But we should not be taking it with any more seriousness than we would take a ludite gripping about the mechanization of cloth manufacturing.

The truth is, the value produced by their job just fell off a cliff. They need to find something else that provides value to replace it. That's it. Being upset about it isn't going to be productive.

Perhaps the value they can make is to rewrite the AI proofs to a more understandable format. Perhaps it is to go flip burgers at McDonalds. That's up to them, but i would suspect that calling releasing valuable information as "bad for science" is not very value accretive.

The thing is, that is a "nice to have", not a condition to make science.

If people believe that such things are useful, then the appropriate response is to reproduce, simplify and otherwise make the proofs provided into more easily digestible pieces.

The scientific process is fundamentally indifferent to whatever shibollets and cultural hangups that its presumed participants may have. An alien with fundamentally different norms from us, who experiments to determine the boiling temperature of water is doing science just as much as a human, even if he never submits a paper to a journal.

The issue you're having is that you're under the mistaken belief that the scientific process is the "community" and "norms" that happen to have developed over the past few centuries by this "scientific" priesthood.

It is not. It has never been. It will never be.

This "scientific" priesthood has simply used their power and reputation to enforce their own self-aggrandizing norms, much like the religious priesthood they replaced. They should not be taken seriously, and to go along with these norms when they are unnecessary is frankly ridiculous and shameful for anyone who actually prizes results.

I would urge you to reconsider your stance, and in particular to put deep thought into why you believe these norms are so important.

OpenAI is doing science the right way. Making the information available as widely as possible so that anyone can check and verify it.

That is the scientific process working exactly as it should.

If that "damages the mathematics community" then all it means is the mathematics community is not doing science and should be ignored.

I cannot stress this enough. If you are complaining about "how they released it" or calling this stuff "slop cannons", you're an unscientific hack that's dragging down humanity.

Engage with the actual claims. Prove them or disprove them. Nothing else matters here.

You are requiring someone to take action that will assist in their own prosecution. That is the goal as per your own statements, and is the obvious primary purpose of these laws.

If that is not compelling someone to self-incriminate, what is?

>Basically you're saying that any law is invalid if it makes or ensures that any kind of wrongdoing visible to witnesses. That's absurd.

No, i'm saying that if you make a law whose primary purpose is to assist in the prosection of those who are compelled to follow it, that law is invalid. If you make a law that incidentally requires someone to assist in their own prosecution, then the law may be valid, but the usage of that information in prosecution or investigations is invalid and falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

I see no difference between it and compelling people in court to testify against themselves, because the only difference is where the self-incrimination is happening.

If your argument for this law is that it forces people to incriminate themselves, that's really an argument that the whole thing should be thrown out.

Under no circumstances should you be able to be compelled to assist in your own prosecution, either directly or indirectly.

Theres a very narrow balance where canals covered in solar panels make sense.

It needs to have enough evaporation that its a problem, but not enough where it justifies piping it.

That's a very narrow market, and so unlikely to be scalable or prevalent.

Personally i don't think this makes much sense, it's not like there is no room to place solar panels, and the added costs of putting it over water makes it not as efficient. I suppose the main benefit is easy access to water for cleaning (which can then be dumped back into the canal).

He doesnt, and so forcing me to obey him is evil.

There is no problem here other than your eco-neuroticism. Stop doing evil things.

What right do you have to tell me what i do or do not need?

What an absolutely evil stance to have.

How confident are you that the machines they acquire root on in the future will never hold any model weights?