I sort of did it. I got Fable to set up an AI system with better and better prompts within my app. At the end of it, Fable made me an AI system that works well enough that my users don't need Fable.
Obviously, it's not K3 level. But Fable did just put itself out of a job in this case.
You did not distill Fable. Relevantly, what you did provides no evidence contrary to the parent’s assertion that Moonshot did not have time to distill Fable.
For now. I wonder if we will ever get to the point where the computer starts doing mathematics that we just can't understand. Surely there must be some limit to what we can understand (like how a gorilla will never understand prime numbers, there are probably limits to our intelligence as well).
Aren't deep learning models themselves a case where we have hints of some deeper underlying logic to why some things are more effective than others, but we lack the mathematical tools to properly work it out for anything of practical size?
All we're able to do is apply flawed analogies, generic information theoretical models, trial and error, post-hoc rationalizations and benchmarks without really understanding why.
You don't need anything as recent as deep learning for that. Look at economics or social sciences, which have been influencing national politics for well over a century now.
Not really, a theorem with a hard proof can have simple but important corollaries. It's also not unthinkable that theorems exist with proofs that cannot reduce to something simple/short.
Doesn’t this generalize?
Mathematics matters less than less as fewer people are capable of understanding it.
So whatever cutting edge, deep insight about the nature of groups matters less than different equations which matters less than solving linear equations, etc.
This bot posts a tautology (always true statement) every day. They aren't very useful. Sampling from all true mathematics is like sampling from all instruction sequences that don't crash. The important part of computer programming isn't finding valid instruction sequences, it's finding the useful ones that do what the customer wants.
Quick numbers that I found suggest lifetime healthcare costs of >$300k even if you're 65 already (with current yearly spending trending more towards $600k-ish).
So even with a (single) catastrophic event just paying yourself might save you money still (which seems insane to me).
Modern car thefts are just a side effect of some terrible design decisions though. If you buy a car with a physical key required to unlock it the likelihood of it being stolen is severely reduced - it's not zero, of course, window smashing and hotwiring are still issues. But the fact that a continuously transmitted signal can be used to unlock and start a car is such a dumb idea for such a small gain in convenience.
No. Especially not if you have friends who could short the stock and you come to some sort of pocket agreement that never sees the light of day. Especially then.
From what I'm reading, it was a big factor that children were walking to school in the dark. One stat I read was that since that time the percentage of kids walking/cycling to school went from almost 50% to now 10%. Maybe that could make the difference this time around.
Turns out "my guy" was a domestic violence abuser, so the left-wing wacko got my vote.