Half of the Millenium Prize Problem Yang-Mills was announced as solved yesterday as well.

enjoy ig i just drew these because i was bored :<

https://openai.com/index/building-scientific-understanding-with-academic-communities/

Shigeru Miyamoto shared thoughts on generative AI and its meaning for creativity in game development.

He compared AI to the evolution of computers and design tools. As technology handles more technical work, human design sense and creative judgment grow more important.

Miyamoto distinguishes between “creating something” and “doing the work.”

Creating starts with deciding what to make, building the overall structure, and having clear intention. The work that follows fills in details, polishes, and executes the idea.

“People can become so satisfied with the work itself that they start mistaking that satisfaction for having created something good.”

Miyamoto believes AI taking over repetitive work could give people more chances to focus on what they truly want to create.

“The more AI takes care of all kinds of tasks for us, the more opportunities we all have to think seriously about what it really means to create something.”

He acknowledges AI could eventually handle almost everything in the creative process, but for now:

“I think there’s still plenty that we humans can do.”

This random thread i found made me realize that probably the average anti-ai person has no idea how AI even works. Lot of comments saying the same wrong thing.

Yes, Claude decompiling games is generative AI. Yes coding AI is also generative. And Yes GPT solving millennium math problems is also generative AI. And if an LLM finds cure for cancer, it would also be generative AI.

Tbh I think most anti's definition of "generative AI" is whatever they don't like . The internet just made everyone think "genAI = bad" and "other Ai = good", which is absolutely terrible since now people just try to find excuses on what is and isn't generative AI, which makes everyone look so dumb

I’ve been teaching math for 69 years, and I’ve never felt this hopeless about the future of my profession.

Something happened yesterday that I can’t stop thinking about. I gave my class a warm-up problem, 847 × 36, and one of my students had the answer in about three seconds. For a second, I thought I was finally getting through to him. Then I asked him to show his work. He didn’t say anything. He just slowly turned his phone around, and there it was: the calculator app, with “30492” still glowing on the screen. I felt my stomach drop.

I don’t know how to explain to him that what he did isn’t math. He pressed some buttons and a machine gave him a number. He didn’t carry anything or line up any columns. When I told him he won’t always have a calculator in his pocket, he looked at me like I was the crazy one.

What really gets me is that nobody wants to talk about is where these things got their math. They stole it. Every calculator runs on centuries of work by real mathematicians, people who poured their whole lives into it. Then some company scraped all of it, crammed it into a $12 piece of plastic, and started selling it. Nobody asked them, and nobody paid them. That’s theft.

And they aren’t even reliable. Type 0.1 + 0.2 into a computer sometime and you get 0.30000000000000004. And people want this thing doing their taxes?

I also think about the people this replaced. NASA used to have whole rooms of human “computers,” mostly women, doing real calculations by hand. Those jobs are gone, and now people act like that’s progress.

The worst part is that I can always tell. Calculator work has no soul. My students’ homework used to have personality: eraser smudges, crossed-out digits, a 7 that looked suspiciously like a 1. You could see a person thinking on the page. Now everything comes back clean and correct, and it makes me want to cry.

I’m not anti-technology. I’m just scared. I’m scared that in ten years nobody will know their times tables, every bridge will be designed by “button-pushers,” and I’ll be the last person on earth who can carry a one. Maybe that’s dramatic. Or maybe I’m the only one paying attention.

TLDR: If it didn’t take suffering, it’s not math

there's a reason its called ARTIFICIAL intelligence. I dont like ai and even I know it gets stuff wrong. It's ARTIFICAL because it thrives off existing knowledge. It's not a thing that knows everything. The captial of france could be rome for all it knows. Ai isnt always right yknow.

https://x.com/AFpost/status/2115054655210471466

https://x.com/JimPethokoukis/status/2115039679724863654

Bro I am so tired of these Antis, like why can't they just stay in their place?

Many anti-AI people resort to attacking, insulting and bullying (especially on social media) people who use AI. Let's say you are on the right side of the argument, and that people should not use AI. Is this method productive in convincing people?

One of the first things taught in the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is that attacking people you disagree with is completely counterproductive – more likely to make them double down on their own opinion than be swayed to yours.

So why do many have a hard time being calm and civil in the attempt to persuade against AI usage?

Do we only draw the line on art or also on code too? If it's different, then who decides which groups get career protection and which don't? Do we take a stand on ai generated code, software and games too?

As soon as y'all realise it's made by AI, y'all get triggered and decide it's "soulless slop" and then you spread that hate and belief onto others. Let's say you dislike an art piece because it's AI, then you see someone else say it looks good and they like it. Y'all will insult them and make fun of them for liking something you don't like

You're not seeing soulless art, you are making yourself and others believe it is soulless. It has soul until you realize there was AI used. It's okay if you have a flawed mentality but don't hate on others for it

https://agmai.org/#request-immediate-release

Don’t get the wrong idea, I am very much an Anti but please people, actually listen to what the other side has to say. give proper, kind, and appropriate recommendations on their thoughts. If they post something that is very clearly ragebait, just downvote and leave it alone. Nobody wants toddlers on computers.

https://x.com/rrwilliams/status/2114935153466479100

https://openai.com/index/building-scientific-understanding-with-academic-communities/

I am genuinely curious if anyone here takes the "10-25% chance of human extinction" statistic seriously, because from a literal a statistic standpoint, it is pure sci-fi cosplay masquerading as math.

There is zero data, zero formula, and zero empirical evidence behind that number. It’s an informal vibe check cooked up by tech CEOs and researchers who call it "p(doom)" which is just a fancy, tech-bro term for a subjective gut feeling. To treat a multi-billion-dollar corporate "vibe" like a definitive statistical metric is completely absurd.

What’s even crazier is watching the anti-AI crowd completely buy into it. Antis constantly claim that tech CEOs are untrustworthy, manipulative hype-men who will say anything to pump up their stock prices. Yet, the absolute second those exact same CEOs say, "By the way, our software is so god-like and powerful it might accidentally destroy human civilization," Antis instantly drop all skepticism. They swallow the hype hook, line, and sinker, running around screaming, "Look! They admitted it themselves!"

It is a massive self-own. They are letting Silicon Valley corporate marketing completely dictate their talking points, falling for a hyper-inflated existential threat meant to distract everyone from everyday, real-world issues that we actually need to regulate AI on, but nah let's focus on p(doom)

An AI capable of replacing a lawyer allows an average person to obtain legal advice at a lower cost. An AI that can perform financial analysis could be even more useful for someone looking to make investments, for instance, for retirement savings, since such investments require financial analysis. While small investments yield smaller returns, they still generate some income, or at the very least, offer a way to protect funds against inflation.

Song by GluttonousP

https://youtu.be/sFfPkUJd_Jk

https://deepmind.google/blog/genie-4-a-new-generation-of-world-simulation/

Pretty wild, could be some really cool video creation capabilities being able to live direct using prompts etc.