That's an odd argument, because a lot of people who have struggled to decipher complex chaotic systems would tell you this is a distinction without much of a difference.

And that's exactly why you can only see evidence of this when the stakes are high enough, such as solving a Millenium problem. The legalese they outputted in response to the incident left them an escape hatch that permits the possibility of theft. People familiar with corporate damage control should recognize the verbal maneuvering, often used to paper over actual guilt.

There was also already a high prior of shadiness. The company is run by someone who is close enough in reputation to "known sociopath".

It's actually far more reasonable to assume that OpenAI stole user data to generate a breakthrough. They have an unbelievably high economic motive to do so. And even a low chance that they might be doing this implies catastrophic risk to anyone with valuable knowledge.

I want to be clear that I agree with this view and with Tao more generally. But we're all just yelling at the wind now.

This is a bad argument. This is clearly not how it works. And unless Tristan is some truly alien-like savant (and maybe he is), what's necessary to initiate the AI's work already exists in countless published research papers and not exclusively in his head or notes. AIs can survey the sum total of all prior work on a problem and discern reasonable paths for inquiry.

Tristan is acting as if he's working off of an outdated model of AI, similar to primitive chess-playing models that winnowed the search space much more deterministically. If someone this intelligent truly doesn't get that this is not at all what AI is anymore, then maybe there's no hope that we ever understand it.

But I think he does realize this and he's flailing about for counterarguments from a place of bitterness and dejection, accepting even those that are too weak to be defensible. And that is very human and even forgivable.

By contrast, I make up my own mind on each individual issue. I believe strongly in restrictive and controlled legal immigration, orchestrated in a manner that maximally benefits the citizenry to which a government is beholden. I support anti-trust enforcement. I am in favor of legalized abortion. I am opposed to wealth taxes that might trigger capital flight. I am in favor of progressive property tax levies on luxury homes. I am strongly in favor of solar geo-engineering as a solution to climate change (unlike progressives). I am deeply opposed to tariffs as a mechanism to remedy the woes of the disenfranchised. I support right to work laws.

I do not have a political home. I choose what I see as good sense and it aligns with no party. THAT is what a true moderate is.

The problem with this statement is that, in context, it clearly only prioritizes the interests and suffering of particular groups.

MAGA emerged because an altogether different group was completely disenfranchised by neoliberalism and ignored for a very long time. But it turns out they were still a major part of our country and they still had voting power.

So did the system actually break or did it work precisely as intended?

I consider myself an accidental moderate. I look for the best answer. I don't turn off my brain and bow down to any specific party or platform.

It's what who said aloud? When and where? At the referenced Potsdam meeting where certain extremist CDU politicians did the same?

If I judged Democrats in the US by what their most extreme members have said, I would have to assume a vote for them would be a vote to end private property. But I don't assume that, because I'm not a moron.

So, show me a trusted source that argues a plurality of mainstream AfD politicians are claiming they want to deport German citizens. Show me where this is the official policy of the party. I see no good source to support that accusation.

And that's likely because it is in fact what it appears to be: a desperate smear campaign generated by extremists arrayed at the opposing political polarity. And it's also apparently failing since large percentages of the German population are moving the other way.

This is entirely reminiscent of the foolishness that sunk the Democrats in the US and put us in the mess we now find ourselves in. "Why moderate our policy stances when we can just call them bigots and Nazis instead?"

I expect the outcome of this strategy will be much the same in Germany.

I can't disagree. But, paraphrasing Churchill, (true) democracy is indeed 'the worst form of government except for all the others.'

And Americans will be given opportunities to remedy their mistakes. Both this year and especially in 2028.

We might find that MAGA having the freedom to speak their mind will turn enough of the electorate against them. Or we will continue to choose poorly and suffer the consequences.

But those consequences will have been arrived at honestly. And that matters.

I can't believe you're still insisting on this complete straw man. AfD's stated position on immigration is very easy to look up and it's NOT this. At all. You are parroting a leftwing lie.

They want to deport undocumented migrants and remigrate certain refugee groups, such as Ukrainians. You're free to disagree with that position, but lying about it and then descending into such an absurdly histrionic spiral over the matter does your argument absolutely no favors. That only supports what people like Caldwell are saying and, ironically, precisely bolsters AfD's argument about suppression of the discourse and an honest discussion of Germany's problems.

In fact, you've offered a perfect demonstration of what Caldwell covered in the first section of this very essay.

> you clearly don't know the history

Are you seriously trying to imply I'm not aware of the Holocaust?

I looked up the Potsdam meeting you mentioned and there were literally members of CDU (Merkel's party) present as well. It's utterly laughable to try and use that to then exclusively castigate a different political party for having had some of its members present. By your illogic, we would be forced to infer that the CDU is also "extremist".

So far, I'm left feeling like AfD has indeed been misrepresented by the liberal western media. And, I say this as someone who certainly does not agree with some of their positions. For example, being "skeptical" about climate change in 2026 is sheer idiocy.

But what is very clear to me is that Germany has a democracy problem. The system as described has not been truly democratic. It instead sounds approximately 'left-leaning authoritarian', right down to your insinuation that a political party should have been banned for its speech.

In case anyone in Germany is interested in rediscovering democracy, please note that THIS is what it looks like: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

This completely misconstrues what professional mathematicians were claiming. The argument would be better phrased as: "having a vast accessible memory and the ability to very rapidly test/recombine previously-elucidated approaches means that AIs can and will easily outdo much of the mathematical community."

Now, one could plausibly make the argument that this is functionally equivalent to a certain form of creativity (I would). But, it may just as well also be a non-exhaustive form. And that is where the open question resides.

To offer a useful analogy: we only notice the bad lip filler jobs.

AI is all over the place and becoming more undetectable by the day. Detectability also relates to the proficiency of the person using it. There are many highly intelligent people using AI surreptitiously and to great effect. Few understand this.

They desperately need to restore status, and one easy option is, in effect, "oh you're still ugly on the inside."

By way of analogy, it has the same underlying motivation as the various sumptuary laws that arose in response to the mass-manufacture of silk.

> The Elizabethan Restrictions: In 1574, Queen Elizabeth I passed strict sumptuary laws to curb "unprecedented social mobility". The Crown decreed that no woman could wear silk cloaks unless her husband was at least a knight, and restricted fabrics mixed with gold or silver to Earls and above.

> Income Thresholds: In 14th-century England, if an esquire or merchant wanted to wear silk, they had to legally prove they made at least £100 a year. If they didn't meet the financial threshold, wearing the fabric was a criminal offense.