Instantly reminded me of this: source code of the first big Portuguese www portal and search engine: https://github.com/celso/sapo

In a practical sense, what are the consequences of that? If you're careful about not installing random shit on your phone?

It has remotely exploitable vulnerabilities in the firmware, Linux kernel, kernel drivers, userspace drivers and HALs. Those don't require installing anything on your device to exploit. There are publicly available proof of concept exploits for a bunch of these vulnerabilities.

> transient LLM crappiness notwithstanding

Bold of you to assume.

Everything in that list except "install drivers" is also present in consoles.

No not really. Most of it is handled for you. You don't install anticheat because the console already has DRM. You don't update your drivers because driver updates are bundled with OS updates (and you can't connect to the store without being on the latest update anyway). You don't compile shaders because they are pre-compiled on console.

Aren't DRM and Anti-Cheat features to solve different problems?

Due to consoles being very locked down and due to them preventing users from running unsigned code, cheaters aren't a problem in multiplayer games on console

I think they're less of a problem, but still a problem. There are devices one can use to add/remove aim jitter, counter weapon recoil, etc. They sit between an input device and the console, and have per-game and per-weapon profiles.

Modern consoles also compile shaders? Ugh, that's the most annoying part of playing RocketLeague right now. The game updates like every day and every time it's updated I need to spend 5ish minutes recompiling (if not more).

Why should a report about crimes committed by the IDF write about crimes committed by Russia or by Hamas? That's the most ridiculous attempt at whataboutism I've seen in a long time.

You did not respond to the point.

> they're applying this argument asymmetrically to their allies vs. foes

If a law is on the books, but it's only applied to a specific set of people in a retaliatory fashion, then it's worse than not being applied at all.

On the contrary, I found it a nice piece of rethoric to reflect on how misaligned incentives can overrule each individual's preferences in order to induce the group to take the opposite path.

> Give it six months

Ah, the "six months till AGI" meme, but unironically :)

Also, before citing Terence Tao on LLMs maybe you should read what he has to say about it...

It's been doing all of the actual coding part of my job for the better part of a year, and you're commenting on a post about how it just released another round of math breakthroughs, besting a bunch of top humans. It can search the web and analyze documents it finds for me. It can do reverse engineering. It can analyze and create images.

Not sure what your definition of AGI is, but it clearly has superhuman performance on most knowledge work already. Do you think after already having demonstrated that it can solve top problems, that the final frontier it won't be able to cross is explaining its solutions to the experts that were researching those problems, and eventually to e.g. grad student or postdoc level practitioners as a lecture course/set of notes?

Isn't it curious that while LLMs are apparently on the precipice of "AGI" and possessing superhuman capabilities for knowledge work, the frontier labs are still hiring armies of humans as "Account Associates", "Account Directors", "AI Support Engineers", and "Applied AI Engineers" (https://openai.com/careers/search/). Since those roles are much more pedestrian than top math problems, one might expect the frontier labs to be at the forefront of automating those jobs using their world-beating models. Wouldn't that be a more direct flex of their economic value?

"Can do the coding part of my job" is your definition of "almost AGI"?

I don't know a single taxi driver who 5 years ago would have claimed "my car can now park itself, FSD must be barely 6 months away".

No, but when Waymos were able to do the driving part, they probably should've seen the writing on the wall.

> It's been doing all of the actual coding part of my job for the better part of a year,

Makes me think of the Upton Sinclair quote:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Not sure I follow: if it weren't incredibly useful, my salary wouldn't depend on it since it wouldn't be doing my work for me, innit? So if I am dependent on it, that's just agreeing that it's now replaced programming per se as a professional activity. That quote applies to the people selling the tool (not me), not the people who it will replace (me), and in the meantime who are buying/using it.

I think the point is that people (software engineers included), will be biased to believe AI won’t replace them because believing otherwise would cost them their job (and therefore salary).

I’m not taking a side on that debate, just clarifying the relevancy of that quote.

Then you don't understand the process at all. You will get something back, you will get an immense amount back. But (almost always) not directly. A mathematician will not suddenly solve a theorem that will enable a cure for cancer or better solar panels or whatever. But working in mathematics will build the gradual understanding that will enable those practical breakthroughs to take place. It's also the most important part of how the people that create those technical breakthroughs will be trained.

This is the most cogent argument I have heard: depriving mathematicians the ability to solve these challenging yet low ROI problems now prevents them from building the foundational knowledge needed to later solve something truly groundbreaking.

Whereas for an LLM, it's just a way to ~waste~ spend tokens.

Unless you think the future doesn't need mathematicians, we ought to respect their requests.

> AI math is happening and there's no going back.

> I suspect that this is in fact the source of much of the angst.

Your comment reveals that you absolutely did not read or understand the Field medalists' open letter... Please, why would you refer to their complaints and claim you disagree when you clearly aren't engaging with the arguments presented therein!?

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this. I could just as easily say that you didn't engage with anything I wrote and just wrote an emotional and emphatic comment upset with me with no actual informational content whatsoever.