"The activity of frontier development and related expertise is not evenly distributed across the world"
"The United States should lead"; "This will also determine whether advanced AI strengthens the networks that the United States and its allies already have"
These points are a bit conflicting, it is not clear what resources the rest of the world will have to narrow the gap. This move is a written attempt to maintain the top place and control over the rest of the world. It doesn't make sense for other companies to help you, what are you giving to them?
This political move will probably fail, because you don't have allies trust. The legislation nightmare from all the countries you operate in will come, and you have to deal with it, if you want take money out of everyone pockets.
Mathematics is just one of the first fields where models are better than humans and it is inconfutable.
Workers will get many boards for sure, you are underestimating unions and protests, it just won't be accepted that there isn't any job for people. The change will be diluted, to try to make economy absorb it.
It would be interesting to know if # daily users increased.
Anyway there are so many projects, it is hard to decide what to projects read about, it is mostly already known figures who get the attention on their projects.
Also we should force ourselves to give enough attention and time to projects we are interested in, without jumping to the next thing every 5 minutes.
7M+ people and 3M+ organizations mapped, you can visualize entities associated with an organizations up to 1k nodes, or visualize someones graph visualization(relatives, partners, phd advisors, org connected to entity.
Wikidata based.
There is also a feed section: https://humansmap.com/?feed=1
Better for mobile use, here you can explore family dynasties, org memberships, interesting relationships.
I increased db size lately, so there is still some latency, due to entities not cached in memory and limited ram.
I think the concept is cool, but I tried clicking on stuff I'm familiar with, and I don't get the circles thing.
For example, the French communist party (PCF) has Jacques Chirac in its first circle. He has briefly been in this party, but he mostly remembered as right-wing.
Also the Fiorentina football club, should have its hall of fame striker Gabriel Batistuta in its first circle -he has a statue- while he appears in the outer circle.
It uses Wikidata statements count, it is a metric of general notability.
It is not possible to have for 300k+ orgs the entities circles ordered by importance for the specific organization.
The feature is you can double click on Jacques Chirac and observe its connections to orgs like "the republicans", " rally for republic" and so on. The fun is in exploring graphs. You can also click investigate for a brief bio synthesis,
1) The article is written in a way that states clearly they threw a lot of compute at the problem. In api cost millions of dollars.
2) Millenium Problems have been the goal every AI company wanted to achieve since their diffusion, all companies have thrown a lot of resource to solve these problems, as they are very famous and scientists spent a lot of time trying to solve them. The first company to solve it will remain in history, despite all of you finding excuses about it.
Regarding product and credibility normal people have a completely different view about LLMs, most don't even know difference between models and probably don't even care about Millenium problems, but care instead if chatgpt can solve their day to day problems. This is just them trying to have the throne on the AI companies space, outside it this result won't matter.
> 1) The article is written in a way that states clearly they threw a lot of compute at the problem. In api cost millions of dollars.
Did I say otherwise?
> 2) Millenium Problems have been the goal every AI company wanted to achieve since their diffusion, all companies have thrown a lot of resource to solve these problems, as they are very famous and scientists spent a lot of time trying to solve them. The first company to solve it will remain in history, despite all of you finding excuses about it.
I know, but I don't know how that relates to my point, which is about the way they are doing it.
Sorry, I misinterpreted point 1), on X they said they didn't have people specialized in that specific field for prompting and steering the agents, just a group of mathematicians and physicists.
The way they are doing it is by trying to get the attention and staying on top of the news, it is a game they are playing that benefits both OpenAI and Anthropic. The more people discuss SF drama, the less attention Chinese Labs and others get.
Things are more entangled than that.
The contribute made from both OpenAI and Anthropic models to solve these problems are clear, now it really hard to quantify which one contributed more, if the role played by the human is major or minor.
OpenAI tried to collaborate and share the results together with a fixed timeline, to avoid this mess but it was inevitable. There is a conflict of interest, where the other researcher works at Anthropic, who will also try to take credit.
Where they may be in the wrong is if they took user data regarding the problem, how will we know if they did or not?
Data Source: Wikidata + Wikimedia Commons. 1M+ people + 700k orgs, entities are limited to Europe and North America, but notable entities from other countries appear. Feed section lets you scroll through dynasties, even from 1500, I find it to be a very interesting Discover feature. Built using ArangoDB, Redis, Vue + Cytoscape.js, data processing from Wikidata full dump took approx. 1-2 days, and due to space occupied I set a notability count on entities.
I remember people saying Apple had booked orders years in advance and wouldn't suffer from memory prices increase. Now they have increased price by $200 on already released Macbook Air and Pro, can't imagine how much M5 Mac Studio will cost with a >128gb ram config.
"The United States should lead"; "This will also determine whether advanced AI strengthens the networks that the United States and its allies already have"
These points are a bit conflicting, it is not clear what resources the rest of the world will have to narrow the gap. This move is a written attempt to maintain the top place and control over the rest of the world. It doesn't make sense for other companies to help you, what are you giving to them?
This political move will probably fail, because you don't have allies trust. The legislation nightmare from all the countries you operate in will come, and you have to deal with it, if you want take money out of everyone pockets.
reply