Hacker News: cman1444

New comment by cman1444 in "Owed a billion dollars in Nvidia stock"

cman1444 — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 14:04:55 +0000

Unless there is documentation that both parties understood the agreement to be something other than is in the contract, or if it's clear that there is a clerical error. For example, prior emails that show different numbers or a hugely under/over market numbers.

New comment by cman1444 in "Jensen Huang says the junior developer problem ends in two years"

cman1444 — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 00:50:19 +0000

I unironically agree with most of these points.

New comment by cman1444 in "Artificial intelligence now beats some of the best human forecasters"

cman1444 — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 14:11:57 +0000

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The headline's usage of the term "forecasting" is not referring to weather forecasting, or climate forecasting. It's referring to forecasting a wide range of possible future events.

For example, predicting which party will win an election, or if there will be a major cyber event in the next year, or the price of Gold in 6 months. Presumably a few of the questions could be related to climate as you're thinking of.

New comment by cman1444 in "Artificial intelligence now beats some of the best human forecasters"

cman1444 — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 17:21:33 +0000

I don't understand your analogy. Are you just suggesting that luck plays too large a role in this contest? Clearly there is some "skill" or ability factor because AI's have been scoring higher and higher each year. Also, they make reference to superforecaster humans, who are presumably consistently better at forecasting than their peers.

New comment by cman1444 in "Artificial intelligence now beats some of the best human forecasters"

cman1444 — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 17:18:53 +0000

Are you referring specifically to climate as in weather? The article is about forecasting a range of future events, not specifically weather.

New comment by cman1444 in "A beginning for mathematics"

cman1444 — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 22:15:42 +0000

I keep seeing people repeat that the goal of math is "understanding".

I do think that is one goal of math but I don't think it's the only one.

I think an additional goal is simply "truth", which can be found without understanding as we've seen with these human-incomprehensible proofs.

Yet another is practical applications. While there's less of these in pure mathematics than in most domains, they do still exist.

New comment by cman1444 in "More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math"

cman1444 — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 14:30:33 +0000

Is it really such an extraordinary claim to say that they could have solved the problem without copying Buckmaster and Alpoge? It seems very much in the realm of possibilities.

To me, it seems just as extraordinary to claim that they did "cheat". If I were a betting man, I would put the odds around 50/50 from everything I've read on the subject.

But my point is that everyone seems to be presuming guilt.

New comment by cman1444 in "More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math"

cman1444 — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 14:27:27 +0000

It seems a perfectly reasonable possibility that Navier-Stokes is just the most easily solvable of the remaining problems, and that their new model is capable of solving it while not being capable of solving the others.

There's many cases of researchers racing to solve various problems after hearing that others are working on them. I don't think anyone's suggesting that it was a coincidence at all. In fact, OpenAI freely admits that they started working on the problem after hearing rumours that others were close to solving it. To me, that's not evidence of "cheating" in any way.

New comment by cman1444 in "More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math"

cman1444 — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 19:38:36 +0000

You forgot possibility 3: OpenAI solved the problem without using any private training data from the two researchers.

Everyone in this thread seems to have made up their mind about OpenAI's guilt though.

New comment by cman1444 in "What will our economic future look like?"

cman1444 — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 16:03:08 +0000

>For other workers: wages may increase on paper, but not really for actual purchasing power.

This is not necessarily a conclusion you can draw from that statement. It's possible that as the economic pie grows, workers' purchasing power increases compared to the counterfactual (a non-AI world), but their purchasing power does not increase as much as the capital owners' does.

New comment by cman1444 in "What will our economic future look like?"

cman1444 — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 15:52:32 +0000

No. As I said, the long-term gains are mixed-to-positive. And, all else being equal, you would rather have more short term job gains than none at all.

New comment by cman1444 in "What will our economic future look like?"

cman1444 — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 14:58:08 +0000

Except, so far, this isn't actually what happens. I listened to Moody's "Inside Economics" podcast with Ramp's Chief Economist, and they observe that companies who adopt AI intensively actually hire 10% more people. Also, this article from The Economist suggests that evidence is mixed-to-positive for long term employment, while short term data center buildout is extremely positive for jobs. Paywalled unfortunately.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/09/04/t...

New comment by cman1444 in "How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy"

cman1444 — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 12:01:32 +0000

Because he works for Anthropic. Supposedly this project was not part of his official capacity as an employee of theirs.

However, if they had published first, it's hard to imagine Anthropic not taking the opportunity to claim "our employee solved this Millennium prize problem using our AI".

New comment by cman1444 in "On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem"

cman1444 — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:54:00 +0000

Where did the veil lift? This feels like a witch-hunt to me.

New comment by cman1444 in "On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem"

cman1444 — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:47:57 +0000

Even if true, I don't see why this is an issue. Are they not allowed to work on problems others are working on? Did Anthropic get first dibs on this problem? Competition is good. And I don't exactly have tons of sympathy when the other side is just a leading AI lab. It's not like it's some scholar who dedicated his life to this problem.

New comment by cman1444 in "GPT-6 Astra"

cman1444 — Fri, 04 Sep 2026 16:28:12 +0000

If we accept that it is a proof then it does improve human knowledge, even if no one can understand how to get there.

If you were navigating a pitch dark cave, wouldn't you find it useful to be able to see the light of the cave opening even if it's not bright enough to illuminate your path to it?

New comment by cman1444 in "Atlas: A World Model for Spatial Intelligence"

cman1444 — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:48:26 +0000

Would it be more reasonable to take images from movies and create worlds of various IPs?

My first thought is a detailed Hogwarts that is fully explorable using scenes from the movies (or even descriptions from the books?)

New comment by cman1444 in "AI Chip Architectures"

cman1444 — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 17:09:12 +0000

How do you know they didn't go over it?

New comment by cman1444 in "What Happens When the Cost of Intelligence Drops 100x"

cman1444 — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 16:11:24 +0000

The big question is if there are larger economic gains to be made from ever greater intelligence. It seems to me like that may be the case for only a select few hard problems, while the vast majority of tasks approach their economic ceiling asymptotically with intelligence.

New comment by cman1444 in "Mathematics in the age of AI"

cman1444 — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 13:03:14 +0000

This is a needless qualifier for the argument at hand.

A proof can just be "assuming these axioms.....the area of a triangle is X"